Society lulled into a false sense of security

Ultimately, the size of the collapse is simply because one system - neo-liberalism - became so powerful that it existed only for the sake of the system, and because of its perceived effectiveness was able to remove all alternative perspectives from the discourse. The alternative stance now being posited by many, our Prime Minister included, is that it is time for the market to be more thoroughly regulated, which would be just as dangerous. Of course, I recognise that the sub-prime debacle’s origins were in US government regulation, however, this is not the point. Any system, either regulated or unregulated needs to have consciousness of its effect on the citizenry, because if it doesn't, it is simply a theory.

Each of these events illustrate that systems, and a belief in the rational operation of these systems, have the ability to lull us into a false sense of security. Perhaps the critical issue in these events, is that in each case, everybody assumed that the system would take care of itself and solve any problems, and it is this ideology of systems and rationality that has brought about this willingness among the broader citizenry to disconnect from the complexity of existence in contemporary society, and allow the system to take care of them. The problem is that the system does not care about complexity, difference and compromise - it is a construct built around efficiency, and the system will make the decisions that are best for the system, rather than the citizen.

But there are clear historical precedents. The Age of Enlightenment (or Age of Rationalism) came about as a rejection of the divine right of Kings, and a rebellion against the orthodoxy and dominance of religious authority as the controlling force in life. To some degree, it brought about a collapse (or reduced influence) in these traditional institutions, and led to both the French and American revolutions and subsequent republics. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs and morals, largely because of their failure to protect ordinary citizens, and partly because ordinary citizens believed (falsely) that these institutions would protect them. At this time, the intellectual and philosophical developments aspired towards rational discourse, personal judgment, liberalism and the scientific method. And, to some degree, this was very much an enlightened perspective.

In effect, this shift morphed into a variety of 20th century movements and ideological beliefs. The faith in rationality, systems (including the preeminence of the market as a means of governing the flow of capital), government as protector, and neo-liberalism, are all artefacts of The Age of Enlightenment. However, the underlying foundations of the Age of Enlightenment have been debased by modern interpretations of rationalism, and systems based around efficiency and short-term gain, rather than the acceptance of curiosity, creativity, and skepticism as a means of furthering society.

The major issue here is that any system, whether it is a religious system, a monarchical system, an institution, or an ideological system, works on a principle of what Gideon Haigh refers to as “near-rightness” - it works OK as long as nothing out of the ordinary occurs. Once we give over to that system it is restricted by its structure, and by a false belief in its self-correcting ability. Sadly, a system doesn’t have the faculty of consciousness nor creativity, so when something goes wrong that doesn’t fit into the system, it is slow to respond - if, indeed, it can respond.

In a system, no individual can take responsibility, because the structure of the system removes the ability of individuals to make judgments without forcing them to conform to a structure pre-determined by the system - it is a cyclical dilemma; a Catch-22.

What happened at Sydney airport, what happened in Victoria, and what happened on Wall Street show that if we place too much faith in systems, then we will never be able to respond appropriately to extraordinary events. This is because systems and contemporary interpretations of rationality are based upon a foundation of reductionism and efficiency. What these events have shown us is that a system can only respond to something that it has been programmed to respond to. In other words, a system can’t think for itself. The process of thinking requires feeling, and rationality aims to remove feeling from decision-making.

In no way, am I suggesting that we should not have rules, laws, and regulations to control and maintain appropriate behaviour. Nor am I suggesting that we should not have boundaries, policies and processes in business and in society. Boundaries are just as important as freedoms when developing ideas. There is an issue of balance, however, and at present, the pendulum has swung too far towards managerial systems thinking, particularly in domains that are not purely about management, such as politics, the environment, and social justice issues. This focus is understandable, because it is a natural instinct to seek simple, “silver bullet” responses, and managerial systems have the appearance of providing simple, rational, and clearly defined answers to many issues.

In times of crisis, such as what we are seeing now in relation to both the bushfires, and the GFC, many of these rational systems have been ignored, or temporarily put aside, as a means to get things moving quickly. As a result, we are seeing concepts such as community, autonomy, and the importance of interdependence come to the fore. What we need to recognise is that any system, any institution, any structure has its weak points, and that there is a compelling and immediate need to re-situate creativity, an openness to complexity, and individual autonomy and responsibility, into these structures.