[P2P-F] Reformist or radical

Sun Aug 14 16:32:57 CEST 2016

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> wrote:

> > ..."two basic social structures: the domination model and the
> partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models
> has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to
> fulfillment or extinction for our species."

Some more info via
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Partnership_Model_of_Society

Interview[edit
<https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Partnership_Model_of_Society&action=edit&section=1>
]

The interview was conducted by Cecilia Gingerich for The Next System
Project:

   - "CG: *In your work you describe moving to a “partnership system.” Can
   you briefly describe what a partnership system is?*

RE: The method I used in my research, the study of relational dynamics,
differs from other approaches in a number of critical respects. It draws
from a much larger database than most studies of society: it includes the
whole of humanity (both its male and female halves), the whole of our
history (including prehistory), and the whole of our lives (not only the
public spheres of politics and economics, but also the private spheres of
family and other intimate relations). It focuses on two systems dynamics;
First: What is the relationship between key elements of a social system in
maintaining or altering the system’s basic character? And second: What
kinds of relationships – from intimate to international – does a social
system support: top down ranking or relations based on mutuality?

This methodology revealed two underlying social patterns or configurations:
the partnership model and the domination model. These new social categories
transcend conventional ones such as right vs. left, religious vs. secular,
ancient vs. modern, capitalist vs. socialist, and so on – which focus only
on particular aspects of a system and pay scant, if any, attention to the
cultural construction of the primary human relations between the female and
male halves of humanity and between them and their daughters and sons. The
partnership model and the domination model have two very different core
configurations.

In contrast to domination systems, where there is top-down authoritarian
rule in both the family and state or tribe, partnership systems have
democracy and equality in both the family and state or tribe.

Unlike domination systems, where the male half of humanity is ranked over
the female half, in partnership systems there is gender equity, and with
this, a greater valuing of “feminine” traits and activities such as caring,
caregiving, and nonviolence – in both women and men as well as in social
and economic policy.

Whereas domination systems are ultimately held together by fear, force, and
the threat of pain, partnership systems are based on mutuality; there are
hierarchies, but rather than hierarchies of domination, these are
hierarchies of actualization where power is empowering rather than
disempowering and accountability, respect, and benefits flow both ways,
rather than just from the bottom up. These configurations or models are the
two ends of a partnership-domination continuum, as no society is a pure
partnership or domination model. But the degree of orientation to either
end of this continuum makes for very different social systems. For example,
Nazi Germany (secular, Western) and Khomeini’s Iran and ISIL (religious,
Eastern) orient closely to the domination model. The Minangkabau
(religious, Eastern) and Nordic nations (secular, Western) orient to the
partnership model."

*...*

** CG: Can you spend a bit more time describing how a partnership system
would address current environmental issues, and particularly climate
change?*

RE: Both capitalist and socialist theory fail to recognize the value of
caring for nature. The applications of socialism in both the former Soviet
Union and China have been characterized by environmental disasters. In
other words, it is not just unregulated capitalism that has been bad for
our natural environment.

By contrast, caring for people and for nature is highly valued in
partnership systems, and these values would inform policies. For example,
high taxes would be levied on activities that create carbon emissions and
there would be tax credits for companies that protect our natural life
support system, such as manufacturing that recycles. Keeping a clean and
healthy environment in both our homes and our planet would be highly
valued. So would caring for people, which would be honored as both men’s
and women’s work. The pejorative “nanny state” would be recognized as
sexist and absurd.

** CG: How quickly could large domination-oriented societies like the
United States and China transition to a partnership-oriented society? Could
the change occur quickly enough to address some of the major “tipping
points” for climate change, which climate scientists expect to occur in the
next several decades?*

RE: To achieve this, we have to recognize that the devaluation of caring
for people and for nature is deeply rooted in the system of gendered
valuations we have inherited. Unless we make this visible we will not see
fundamental change. This is why an important part of the partnership
political agenda is to bring partnership education into schools and
universities. Many people recognize that old thinking cannot help us solve
the problems it created. Young people are especially hungry for a new
paradigm, a new way of looking at the world and living in it. If they are
to be effective agents of change, starting now, they need to recognize
beliefs, myths, and stories that promote domination or partnership, and
learn the terrible consequences of domination and the benefits of
partnership.

*...*

** CG: Are there any specific economic elements that are necessary for a
partnership system in a post-industrial country? (markets, money, etc.)*

RE: Systemic change requires both cultural and institutional or structural
change, especially in economics. To achieve this, we need a new economic
map. The old economic map fails to recognize the contributions of the three
unpaid economic sectors: the household economy, the community volunteer
economy, and the natural economy. My book The Real Wealth of Nations
introduces a new economic map that – along with the market, government, and
illegal economies – includes these essential economic sectors. This
integrative map is the foundation for a partnership economic system that
recognizes that the real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions
of people and nature.

** CG: Can you explain to us the importance of economic indicators, and
specifically the Social Wealth Economic Indicators (SWEIs) that you have
developed at the Center for Partnership Studies?*

RE: The main economic indicator policy makers rely on today is GDP or Gross
Domestic Product. It is a strange indicator. It includes activities that
harm and take life. Selling cigarettes and the medical and funeral costs of
smoking boost GDP; so do oil spills, since cleanup, litigation, and their
other costs augment GDP. But GDP fails to include activities essential to
support life, such as the work in households of caring for people, starting
in early childhood, even though without it there would be no workforce. GDP
also gives no value to caring for our natural life-support systems, without
which we could not survive.

The “informal” work carried out principally by women makes up a large
proportion of the U.S. economy.

Social Wealth Economic Indicators (SWEIs) are unique tools for both
progressive policy makers and advocates for a more equitable and
environmentally sustainable society. They differ not only from GDP but also
from most other GDP alternatives by demonstrating the enormous economic
value of caring for people and nature. For example, a recent Australian
study showed that if the work of caring for people in households were
included in GDP, it would add 50% to it. SWEIs also pay much more attention
to gender than other GDP alternatives. For instance, they reveal the link
between the disproportionate poverty of women and the lack of policies that
support the care work still primarily performed by them. Also unlike other
GDP alternatives, SWEIs not only measure outputs (where a nation stands in
its quality of life); it pays equal attention to inputs: what kinds of
investments lead to better outcomes. SWEIs show that the United States lags
way behind other developed nations in its public support for early
childhood care and education. This is a major factor in our high poverty
rates. It also means that we are not adequately investing in creating the
“high quality human capital” economists tell us is essential for success in
our post-industrial, knowledge/service age.

** CG: How might a partnership system in a post-industrial country deal
with currently unpaid work, including unpaid care work?*

RE: There are policies already in place in other developed nations – from
publicly funded paid parental leave to stipends to help families with
children and refundable tax credits for caregivers of the elderly. Our
county has to catch up! So also do poorer nations, which is why we are
seeking funding to adapt SWEIs into a global Index: one number per nation,
like GDP.
The combination of overpopulation (due to denying women reproductive
freedom) and resources depletion makes a shift from the present market
consumer-driven economics essential. This shift is also essential because
we are entering an era of structural unemployment and underemployment due
to a massive technological shift. A guaranteed annual income or negative
income tax where people are given monetary stipends is one response to the
replacement of human workers by automation and robotics – trends that will
exponentially increase with the advent of artificial intelligence. The
response I propose in The Real Wealth of Nations is linking this monetary
support to the work that only humans can perform: caring, caregiving,
creating. People need meaningful work to be fulfilled, and just handing out
money does not encourage positive contributions." (
http://thenextsystem.org/riane-eisler-on-changing-the-whole-system/)

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160814/b78c4636/attachment-0001.html>