VIInnovation as Crossroads

What if it has been the case that social institutions have changed at just the right pace? Not to argue with Voltaire over this, or get too Platonic or New Agey about it, but what if? If there are constraints on the pace of social progress as well as constructs that aid progress, knowing them might help us decide. The discussion of these constraints and constructs may be more fruitful in producing further progress than what critical analyses of power differentials allows for. In fact, we generally see that the constructs or supports of earlier generations or moments shape the constraints felt by more recent generations. That's part of how we recognize or trace change as progress.

When progress is too idealistic or revolutionary to be sustainable, the later generation forgets the sacrifices, lessons, and wisdom of earlier generations, repeats historical mistakes, and history repeats itself. In this way, progress cannot be "too fast". When progress is not sufficiently thorough, old problem rear their ugly heads. Part of what this means is that we must "structure-in" progress. Any sense of progress must become part of a social institution deemed worthy of maintenance. Although we have deemed tyranny an enemy of the people, pluralist democracy is a recently proposed solution that the jury is still out on, for example.

Part of what it means that each generation must learn certain lessons (like how to use the language of origin), is that the lessons that must be learned by each generation are one of the hypothetical constraints on social progress that I propose. At some point in prehistory, it became custom to teach language to every child who could learn language. Although this takes a great deal of time and effort, we still deem this valuable. Because language learning is an assumed custom, we spend our attention on HOW to improve education not on WHETHER it is worth learning to speak and--more recently and in many countries--to write. (Now, is it economically worthwhile for international world citizens to learn the most dominant language in the world today? Whether one answers yes or no, we can be certain that it will take extra investment if it is not one's language of origin.)

A further constraint to progress is too much diversity mixed with conflict (or lacking coordination). This is part of why assimilation into the dominant culture has been the preferred method of cultural exchange throughout history--it's easier in one way and generally economically beneficial to those in the dominant society. This is where cultural relativism is still relevant but also a constraint on further progress (yesterday's solutions becoming today's problems). Since dominance and assimilation as opposed to accomodation of difference and equal exchange is still the relative norm, critical power analyses and identity politics are still relevant. They are simply not optimal. They were necessary and good enough in the post-colonial period (which is still ongoing for some countries), but they are a brake on further progress for any pluralistic group attempting to move beyond post-colonial political conflicts.

I am not saying here that I've forgotten the sacrifices made in order to bring up the necessity of revolution against colonial and supremacist oppressions; I am saying it must be structured-in or we are doomed to repeat the same old thing in new forms. Or, alternatively, we may doom ourselves to repeat the same old lessons of relativism, tolerance, and a tired, monotone repetition of the value of diversity.

Although my personal interest is much more on the cultural side of cultural technology, we all must adjust to the technological side as well. It's unavoidable. Even extremely remote Amazonian tribes are forced to deal with modern-day political structures in order to face advancing economic interests in the form of oil companies (and others). Some social instances bring social tensions into stark relief, such as Evo Morales leading Bolivia.

I suppose I have two significant points to make here. The first is that, for the next generation or so (if not already for my own), the dominant world language is becoming electronica and electronic/virtual technological innovations. Genetics and other new innovations will help distinguish and define later generations. The second is that, more than any sort of social structure, democracy as an ideal is about a particular type of process. Affirming both of these can help us situate a genuine vision of sustainable global progress, help to produce coordination rather than continued conflict (including oppression).