When I read the original post I thought, "I am not a nemesis, I am the most boring of types, a liberal incrementalist."
I sometimes struggle with the term "utopia" or "utopian" because I do think of that as being in contrast to an incrementalist vision of ("try to solve problems; have some successes and some failures; continue trying.") a…
When I read the original post I thought, "I am not a nemesis, I am the most boring of types, a liberal incrementalist."
I sometimes struggle with the term "utopia" or "utopian" because I do think of that as being in contrast to an incrementalist vision of ("try to solve problems; have some successes and some failures; continue trying.") and it's taken me a while of reading The Elysian to realize that you find the idea of utopia inspiring but (I think) in many ways your practical impulses are often liberal incrementalist.
at this point, i'm very envious of the humble liberal incrementalists, let alone the utopian visionaries... while Elle has managed to stay admirably ecumenical on this point, i can't imagine a definition of "utopia" that doesn't require some form of central governance—and i think the coming century is going to be brutal for governments of all stripes. the idea that any political or ideological modeling can anticipate the roiling destabilization that the future portends seems to require ironclad optimism. but, like i've said to Elle, i wouldn't dream of trying to talk anyone out of hoping.
Well yes, as you know I agree with you. But not because I can't imagine a utopia that doesn't require some form of central governance. But because I can't imagine a community (period) that doesn't require some form of central governance. Whether utopian or dystopian.
i know, this gets a little pedantic, but i think it's an important question: is there a meaningful distinction between leadership and governance? (this would be a good one for any political scientists in our audience!) in my mind, for most of human history, communities have coalesced around central leadership, which is dynamic, organic, immediate, and situational. i would contrast that with governance, which connotes a more rigid, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic, impersonal structure. again—a pedantic distinction, but i think there's something there.
Hmmmmm that feels like a bias to me (that leadership gets all the good words and government gets all the bad ones). A leader can be dynamic or rigid, bureaucratic or not. So can governance.
If you want to make a distinction between leading a small group vs. leading a very large group, maybe then you could say there are those kinds of distinctions??
well, let's think it through... we can identify an intrinsic quality in individuals that supercedes any administrative role they might occupy. at any scale of organization, you can have people who are bad leaders, good leaders, and brilliant leaders. oftentimes, brilliant leaders distinguish themselves in the midst of administrative dysfunction. great leaders have a unique ability to read the environment and coordinate an organized response without having to rely on bureaucratic infrastructure. these are the people that rise to the top organically, who inspire trust in people by virtue of their... leadership. they're the ones who have always formed the hubs of organic communities; we'll discover more of them as governments fail to respond to the challenges of the future, when the top-down administration of rules and bureaucracy starts to collapse. we could probably look to the recent disaster in Morocco for some real-world, on-the-ground examples of effective leadership responding to a crisis where governance failed.
Oh well yes, that describes me perfectly! And I don't think that's antihtetical to a utopian vision—just because how else would you get to a better future apart from trying things, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and incrementally improving as you go?
When I read the original post I thought, "I am not a nemesis, I am the most boring of types, a liberal incrementalist."
I sometimes struggle with the term "utopia" or "utopian" because I do think of that as being in contrast to an incrementalist vision of ("try to solve problems; have some successes and some failures; continue trying.") and it's taken me a while of reading The Elysian to realize that you find the idea of utopia inspiring but (I think) in many ways your practical impulses are often liberal incrementalist.
at this point, i'm very envious of the humble liberal incrementalists, let alone the utopian visionaries... while Elle has managed to stay admirably ecumenical on this point, i can't imagine a definition of "utopia" that doesn't require some form of central governance—and i think the coming century is going to be brutal for governments of all stripes. the idea that any political or ideological modeling can anticipate the roiling destabilization that the future portends seems to require ironclad optimism. but, like i've said to Elle, i wouldn't dream of trying to talk anyone out of hoping.
Well yes, as you know I agree with you. But not because I can't imagine a utopia that doesn't require some form of central governance. But because I can't imagine a community (period) that doesn't require some form of central governance. Whether utopian or dystopian.
i know, this gets a little pedantic, but i think it's an important question: is there a meaningful distinction between leadership and governance? (this would be a good one for any political scientists in our audience!) in my mind, for most of human history, communities have coalesced around central leadership, which is dynamic, organic, immediate, and situational. i would contrast that with governance, which connotes a more rigid, self-perpetuating, bureaucratic, impersonal structure. again—a pedantic distinction, but i think there's something there.
Hmmmmm that feels like a bias to me (that leadership gets all the good words and government gets all the bad ones). A leader can be dynamic or rigid, bureaucratic or not. So can governance.
If you want to make a distinction between leading a small group vs. leading a very large group, maybe then you could say there are those kinds of distinctions??
well, let's think it through... we can identify an intrinsic quality in individuals that supercedes any administrative role they might occupy. at any scale of organization, you can have people who are bad leaders, good leaders, and brilliant leaders. oftentimes, brilliant leaders distinguish themselves in the midst of administrative dysfunction. great leaders have a unique ability to read the environment and coordinate an organized response without having to rely on bureaucratic infrastructure. these are the people that rise to the top organically, who inspire trust in people by virtue of their... leadership. they're the ones who have always formed the hubs of organic communities; we'll discover more of them as governments fail to respond to the challenges of the future, when the top-down administration of rules and bureaucracy starts to collapse. we could probably look to the recent disaster in Morocco for some real-world, on-the-ground examples of effective leadership responding to a crisis where governance failed.
Oh well yes, that describes me perfectly! And I don't think that's antihtetical to a utopian vision—just because how else would you get to a better future apart from trying things, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and incrementally improving as you go?