Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Ken Webster focuses on a necessarily 'wholistic' or 'integrative' understanding of the circular economy characterized by the Garden Brain. 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
Scoop.it!
While gains have certainly been made toward a more inclusive, egalitarian society over the half-century since Martin Luther King delivered his iconic I Have a Dream Speech (as part of the March for Jobs and Justice in Washington, D.C.), in many respects – particularly in economic matters – there has been little or no progress at all. Indeed, by certain measures equality has significantly diminished in the US. Accompanying a minimum wage that, when adjusted for inflation, is lower than it was in 1968, and wages that – except for the wealthy – haven’t risen in decades, the economy has polarized wealth to a greater degree than ever, reducing the economic classes more and more to two – rich and poor – and squeezing the middle and working classes into little more than a memory in the process. In among other places, this lack of change is observable in the fact that it’s five decades later and people are still talking about jobs – coveting jobs as though jobs were those necessities and luxuries that work is obtained to secure.
|
Scoop.it!
Not jobs, then, but free access to resources is what people need to be free from dependence on others, and equal in any meaningful sense. And though one must work to some degree to maintain these resources, along with one’s standard of living, any work beyond what is necessary or voluntary is inimical to equality. In this respect, it is telling that the ongoing mechanization and automation of agricultural and industrial work (continuing more or less apace since the 17th century) has not resulted in an overall diminution of work. In many respects mechanization has even increased burdens on workers. Though electric lights allow people to see at night, they also enabled the world of work to colonize what once was outside its domain. Though computers may drastically increase productivity, this increase is not accompanied by any corresponding diminution in work. The demands only increase. To be sure, one would imagine that an egalitarian society would employ these technologies in a manner that would create less work, not more. And in the 1930s, people thought just that – that the mechanization of production would lead to a three day work week. This was the goal of the more critical factions of the labor movement: not jobs, but the elimination of jobs and the development of a just society. Needless to say, such has not transpired. People are working more than ever – producing, it should be added, largely toxic products.
Scoop.it!
“The feminist movement of recent decades has certainly brought major changes for women; more equality in the workplace, more sexual freedom and control, and a more equal social standing alongside men. But one can’t help noticing that women who achieve high positions of power, whether in business or politics, often seem to end up behaving much as men do. That is, they tend to adopt a masculine, power-oriented, competitive, logic-based approach which seems to leave little space for feminine intuition, compassion and feeling. This brings into question whether much has changed at all. For if women’s liberation has resulted in women arriving in business and politics only to behave in much the same competitive fashion as men, we can hardly claim to be on the cusp of a new paradigm!
jean lievens's insight:
This entry was posted on Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 2:54 pm and is filed under P2P Governance, P2P Public Policy, P2P Subjectivity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Taylor S's curator insight,
March 23, 2016 10:58 AM
Funny enough this article has put me in a funny place as I both seem to agree and disagree with what its saying, it is saying that with woman gaining more power either in the workplace, politics or even the media we are taking up that characteristics of men and leaving out any emotion, and portraying this in a negative way. Now the way this relates to me is because industry is what’s often considered to be a man’s world. Despite the whole push for equality in the workforce it is still stereotyped as male dominant, meaning that females within that workplace have to as stated in the article (adopt a masculine, power-oriented, competitive, logic-based approach) however I don’t think by taking up these traits that we completely loose our feminine side, like in any situation we change how we portray ourselves, the key there I agree is finding the balance between Masculinity and Feminism in the workplace.
This entry was posted on Friday, September 13th, 2013 at 2:54 pm and is filed under P2P Governance, P2P Public Policy, P2P Subjectivity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
|
