VIIInnovation as Crossroads

Just as pluralist democracies are still relatively new (in the toddler stage of development), electronic exchange is relatively new. At the same time that the three major 20th century attempts to address tyranny (especially as oligarchy and hereditary aristocracy) in large, densely populated industrial societies were in conflict (fascism, communism, and expansionary capitalism), the issue of electronic exchange became significant. In comparison, the issue of the importance of fossil fuels really came into its own in the previous couple of centuries. And, just as we haven't quite figured out a commonly accepted method of redistributing and utilizing fossil fuels, we haven't quite figured out a commonly accepted method of electronic production and exchange. A relative timeline is important for considering the pace of economic progress. If we don't like the timeline that it takes to create sustainable progress, we will try for revolutionary reforms that will ultimately prove to be unsustainable. If we want changes to be sustained, we will have to institutionalize them. Now, if we see democracy as a form of governance that is inherently revolutionary (or communism for that matter, or Islamic revolution for that matter), we structure-in cyclical (at least--think of Jefferson's ideas about refreshing the tree of liberty) or consistent conflict.

Revolutionary violence seems a fairly intuitive response to colonial oppression. Cyclical or consistent violence may be called for, fitting, until the revolution is successful. The problem is that with Russia's oppression of its neighbors and America's oppression of its client states, both countries went against their own proposed political ideals. While both might have accepted that the "Third World" could be a battlefield and testing grounds, the conflict between the two appropriated huge amounts of resources from the "First World" countries, "Second World" allies, and "Third World" lowest class nations.

From the vantage point of an ecologically aware world citizen, not only is the political hypocrisy of both fomentors of "global revolution" stark, not only is the devastation...well, devastating, but that utilization of resources is unsustainable. This unavoidable--in the light of obvious fact--outcome was a largely intended result of Reagan's policies. He wanted to bankrupt the Soviet Union, wanted to prove the futility of trying to out-industrialize a more economically innovative competitor. And he was willing to pay the environmental, social, and political costs it would take. I say, "Touche, sir; well-played."

In comparison, China has so far wisely decided to avoid much of the cost of competing for global military superiority while embracing the competitive spirit of industrialization through environmental devastation. India, seemingly, has not been as able (without such a central command structure) to push environmental devastation, so they have gone more in the direction of utilizing their human resources and inviting technological investment (of course, the Chinese are hedging their bets and also working on financial and human resources investment and regional military superiority). The two major competitors in the latter half of the 20th century were able to successfully bankrupt themselves while the greatest beneficiaries of the competition over fossil fuels have done what the leisurely rich have tended to do--spend and enjoy while maintaining the status quo in their neighborhood.

In looking forward, if I am correct, the people who get caught up in things such as the debate over whether English should be dominant will do one of two things (both a waste of time): 1)resent this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism, or 2)luxuriate in the passing advantage of this secondary outcome of recent historical imperialism. While the backward-looking post-colonial critics may be accurate enough in their power-analysis description of this outcome, they will already be behind the ball in comparison to the Indians who are leveraging their (also historically recent) full-scale exposure to the English language. The more provincial Islamist revolutionaries who have adopted the 20th century fascination with cyclical or continual violence (so passe) are reaping the benefits of trying to remain a cultural backwater throughout the last sixty years. Again, the various justifications for trying to remain aside are secondary, in my opinion to the effects. It's impossible to remain aside culturally. But it is possible to slow the rate of assimilation and coordination. (Interestingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran has had one of the few accepted state-sponsored drives to significantly reduce population growth rates in recent decades.)

Where does all of this lead? Simple. In one way, it really is simple to understand--maybe not as simple to do, but I wonder about that. Optimally, this leads each nation, social group, and individual to something akin to what I described as balance by six points. It leads to a point of view in which one actively and consciously works on resilient progress (whether by "one" it is you as individual or as part of one/each group). It leads to the possibility--as people consider degree of coordination that they want as opposed to assimilation or rejection--of less military and cultural conflict without capitulation. It leads to a revised understanding of democracy as a utopian sort of static ideal (with concomitant cyclical violence since stasis is impossible) to the idea of democracy as the real-life process of political and social inclusion and progress. Adopting innovation as a second language is a crossroads between the post-modern post-structural prison and a post-modern post-structural reaffirmation of human history and potential.

This quote from Donald Merlin that I began with is still apropos:

In fact, the uniqueness of humanity could be said to rest not so much in language as in our capacity for rapid cultural change.