I have recently completed an essay, From Systemic Crisis to Collective Renewal, which brings together six essays I previously published on Medium into a single collection.
These pieces extend beyond what I have already shared here, exploring how communities might respond to current systemic challenges and strengthen their resilience. While there may be little any of us can do directly about the global situation, there is still a great deal we can do locally.
Not everyone will agree with these ideas. But if they resonate with your thinkingāand if your community is already stepping forward to make changes it believes will improve its futureāI would welcome hearing from you.
My intention is to begin preparing materials that communities can draw upon if they decide to create their own local responses. Over time, this could become a collection of case studies or ābest practicesā from what we might call *Lighthouse Communities, *places that are showing the way by exploring and demonstrating new possibilities.
These Lighthouse Communities could help illuminate practical paths forward for others navigating similar transitions.
From Systemic Crisis to Collective Renewal: Essays on Power, Climate, and the Future of Democracy
Iām sympathetic to the impulse toward crafting a comprehensive synthesis (having done that sort of thing myself on occasion), but Iām also pulled in the directly of wondering what the point of entry is for someone not already familiar with all the underlying content. How would this play out as series of lessons for novices?
The honest answer is that I donāt know. This collection is really a first step: bringing several essays together in one place for people who may want to engage more deeply with the ideas.
My hope is that it might spark conversations within communities about what local resilience could look like in practice. If there is interest, I would intend to respond to people appropriately. It is fundamentally an invitation. What do we do next? I am welcome suggestions.
My question to you is a bit of a ātrick questionā, because the answer I arrived for myself is āthere is no proper order!ā It depends entirely on audience.
For example, given an audience with no background or interest in philosophy, metamodernism, or anything like that, Iād recommend starting with your Part IV, The Critical Role of Oil in Modern Society. This was the approach of Nate Hagens in the earliest phases of his Great Simplification podcast series. Energy economics (based on very conventional scientific thinking) ought to be enough to convince open-minded people that change must be in the works.
Then maybe the Three Horizons framework. To pivot beyond the Three Horizons insight that different systems change on different rhythms, and to incorporate your more philosophical essays, Iād then recommend the work of Donnela Meadows on āleverageā as a linking mechanism. Why? Because Meadows makes it clear that highest change leverage flows from the level of paradigms and mindset. Itās relatively easy to agree that fossil fuels are bad news in the long run. Itās harder to identify how to shift constructively toward a different social course. Meadows connects those dots.
By contrast, typical 2R discussions (and similar discussions other places on the liminal web) want to focus on mindset primarily. Your current essay order may speak to that audience. The challenge, IMO, is will any of those readers ever get to Part 6 about the oil and so forth? Philosophers have been debating epistemology for 2.5 thousand years now in the Western tradition, and I doubt there will be any resolution to any of that any time soon. Do we really need complete philosophical alignment in our action coalitions? I hope not! My own approach allows for collaboration between the philosophically miscellaneous.
Robert, thank you for taking the time to think this through so carefully. I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions.
You may well be right that energy economics can provide a clear entry point for many people. Nate Hagensā approach has certainly shown how effective that can be. At the same time, part of what led me to assemble the essays in this way is the sense that purely analytical or technical arguments about oil, climate, or limits have been available for decades, yet they have struggled to shift societal direction.
That raises the question of whether information alone is enough. In fact, the essays were written in a different sequence from the way they are presented. I began with Parts II and III, because I was trying to understand why these issues had not gained more traction. Addressing some of the deeper philosophical assumptions, as you put it, may help explain why societies often struggle to act even when the evidence is clear. The issue of transition from oil is just one of many examples.
My instinct therefore was to begin slightly further āupstream,ā exploring the cultural and philosophical assumptions that shape how societies interpret information in the first place. But that doesnāt mean your suggested path is wrong ā it may simply reach a different audience.
Do you think, perhaps there isnāt a single entry point at all. It would certainly explain why we have not had more success. Some people may begin with energy, others with systems thinking like the Three Horizons, and others with questions about culture and worldview. If the ideas are useful, perhaps the goal is simply to create multiple doors through which people can enter the conversation.
I very much think there is no single entry point! An author or presenter has to pick something to lead with, but different readers or listeners will engage with different sorts of content as a function of their own experiences, prior frameworks, current agendas and so on.
In the case of Nate Hagens, recently he has pivoted more to culture and inner development, largely for similar reasons to those you mention. Environmental activism, pure and simple, has hit any number of systemic walls. The required journey (which will be found through trial and error, by those at least who keep on trying), will inevitably lead up the Meadows scale to paradigm shift, IMO, because everything less than that will turn out wanting in impact.
The problem I am currently working on is that paradigm shifts feels very much like one-person-at-a-time inner work. Can lower-leverage institutional arrangements be tweaked to encourage that sort of transformation on wider scales? That is, can āparadigm shiftā become something like a standard, to-be-expected, adult development goal? My hypothesis is yes it can, for the simple reason that paradigmatic freedom and flexibility are likely to succeed better under chaotic stress than anything more rigid. (I also fully expect to see the great mass of humanity attempt every conceivable āmore rigidā option as well). Itās just that I think evolution is stacked in favor of those who can surf in the direction of evolutionary emergence. As for coming at it from different directions, Iām seeing something like Renaissance holism being advocated by presenters whose main focus is āhow to keep your job in the age of AIā. They are getting to that target though calculation, not idealism. None the less, even rank materialists nowadays are coming to realize the success stories of the future will be penned by those who are most adaptable.