<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>It is useful to point out that not all so called 'partnerships' have the same ideals as Eisler's partnership model. But not sure what you are referring to, Orsan, when you say "imposed gender discourse"??</div><div><br></div><div>Anna</div><div><br>On 14 Aug 2016, at 15:44, Orsan <<a href="mailto:orsan1234@gmail.com">orsan1234@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><br>One would wonder how would Eisler see or explain the public-private 'partnership' or social 'partnership' discourse, which has imposed gender discourse through the good global governance discourses via world development bank, OECD, UN, imf, and EU backed neoliberal developments policy frameworks along the 80s, 90s until today...</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Orsan<br><br></div><div><br>On 14 aug. 2016, at 16:32, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Bob Haugen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bob.haugen@gmail.com" target="_blank">bob.haugen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> ..."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."</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some more info via <a href="https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Partnership_Model_of_Society">https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Partnership_Model_of_Society</a></div><div><br></div><h1 style="color:black;font-weight:normal;margin:0px 0px 0.25em;overflow:hidden;padding:0px;border-bottom:1px solid rgb(170,170,170);font-size:1.8em;font-family:"Linux Libertine",Georgia,Times,serif;line-height:1.3;background-image:none;background-repeat:initial"><span class="" id="Interview">Interview</span><span class="" style="font-size:small;margin-left:1em;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1em;display:inline-block;font-family:sans-serif"><span class="">[</span><a href="https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Partnership_Model_of_Society&action=edit§ion=1" title="Edit section: Interview" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background:none">edit</a><span class="">]</span></span></h1><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">The interview was conducted by Cecilia Gingerich for The Next System Project:</p><ul style="margin:0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em;padding:0px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.4px"><li style="margin-bottom:0.1em">"CG: <b>In your work you describe moving to a “partnership system.” Can you briefly describe what a partnership system is?</b></li></ul><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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?</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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."</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>...</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>* CG: Can you spend a bit more time describing how a partnership system would address current environmental issues, and particularly climate change?</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>* 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?</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>...</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>* CG: Are there any specific economic elements that are necessary for a partnership system in a post-industrial country? (markets, money, etc.)</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>* 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?</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">The “informal” work carried out principally by women makes up a large proportion of the U.S. economy.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br><b>* CG: How might a partnership system in a post-industrial country deal with currently unpaid work, including unpaid care work?</b></p><p style="margin:0.5em 0px;line-height:22.4px;color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">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.</p><div><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.4px">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." (</span><a class="" href="http://thenextsystem.org/riane-eisler-on-changing-the-whole-system/" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.4px;text-decoration:none;color:rgb(102,51,102);padding-right:13px;background:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent) right center no-repeat,url("data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20width%3D%2210%22%20height%3D%2210%22%3E%3Cg%20transform%3D%22translate%28-826.429%20-698.791%29%22%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%225.982%22%20height%3D%225.982%22%20x%3D%22826.929%22%20y%3D%22702.309%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%20stroke%3D%22%2306c%22%2F%3E%3Cg%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M831.194%20698.791h5.234v5.391l-1.571%201.545-1.31-1.31-2.725%202.725-2.689-2.689%202.808-2.808-1.311-1.311z%22%20fill%3D%22%2306f%22%2F%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D%22M835.424%20699.795l.022%204.885-1.817-1.817-2.881%202.881-1.228-1.228%202.881-2.881-1.851-1.851z%22%20fill%3D%22%23fff%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fg%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E")">http://thenextsystem.org/riane-eisler-on-changing-the-whole-system/</a><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.4px">)</span> </div></div><br><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </div><div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br><br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NetworkedLabour mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>