{"id":7176,"date":"2018-02-08T06:52:23","date_gmt":"2018-02-08T06:52:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=7176"},"modified":"2018-02-08T06:52:23","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T06:52:23","slug":"manchester-bedford-and-the-steady-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2018\/02\/08\/manchester-bedford-and-the-steady-state\/","title":{"rendered":"Manchester, Bedford and the Steady State"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is a brief review of the discussion paper<\/a> that Susan Brown, from the University of Manchester, has written for\u00a0Steady State Manchester\u00a0[SSM], and which I wrote about on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

We learn from the Introduction to the paper (page 5) that Steady State Manchester (SSM) is concerned with how we transition to a \u2018steady state culture\u2019 \u2013 by which SSM means ways of shared living \u201cwhere people thrive without harming the planet\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 SSM adds that a steady state culture emerges through and develops local economies founded on a \u2018viable economic model; that is, a model which recognises a dependence on the environment, on the social structures the environment supports and on the well being of the individuals that make up those social structures.<\/p>\n

There is a lot packed into these brief sentences, and some of it needs to be contested.\u00a0 The first thing to say is that SSM is not the only group interested in people being able to thrive without harming the planet; arguably, everyone interested in sustainability \/ sustainable development would want that \u2013 more or less \u2013 although it does depend on what \u2018thrive\u2019 means, and who gets to decide this.\u00a0 And I take \u201charming the panet\u201d to mean really buggering up the biosphere rather than dropping the odd bit of litter or dog doo-doo, deplorable and distressing though these are.\u00a0 It seems reasonable to conclude that, in SSM\u2019s view, thriving implies \u2018shared living\u2019 as they link the two phrases closely together.\u00a0 I am not really clear what shared living means, or what the implications are for those of a more individualistic turn of mind (and I don't just mean hermits).<\/p>\n

The second thing to note is the stress on the need for a viable economic model: one that acknowledges the dependency of individuals and social groups on the planet.\u00a0 I am sure that SSM thinks that this is not the economic model that we currently have, and many would agree with them.\u00a0 However, a key question (but not for today) is whether such a viable model has to be a steady state one.<\/p>\n

The next section of the paper shows the immensity of the task of transitioning to a steady state culture as this requires a \u201cshift in underpinning understandings, values, and aspirations\u201d.\u00a0 That is, we shall have to change what we know, how we know it, how we think, what we value and what we want from life.\u00a0 The point of the paper is that it is education (viewed broadly) that has a \u201ccrucial role to play in helping us make the transition\u201d.\u00a0 Or, I wonder, should that be that \"in helping us want to<\/em> make that transition\".<\/p>\n

Susan Brown asks:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 what educational communications\/activities can help shift understandings and values and develop the skills needed to make the transition to a steady state culture and the economy?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the space of a few lines on page 6, we\u2019re told that<\/p>\n

[i] education can be a primary force for change, enhancing the life chances of individuals and the workings of societies, and that ...<\/p>\n

[ii] education tends to support change which accords with the values existing within society rather than striving to change those values.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And there is no contradiction here particularly when it comes to schools which tend to be conservative \/ status quo institutions. \u00a0Whilst they are capable of changing the lives of individuals for the better (I am one such), it\u2019s always the case, for obvious reasons, that schools are easier to change by society than society is by schools.<\/p>\n

Although the paper quotes Jacombs (2004) who describes education as \"the most sophisticated instrument yet fashioned by society for its own conscious social evolution\", that role is easier to see working in universities than in schools. \u00a0Indeed, some argue that it is the prime role of the research and scholarship that emanates from HE \u2013 and we might add technological evolution to the quote. \u00a0In schools, however, the instrument is a blunt one largely because learners don't learn what teachers teach.<\/p>\n

It is undoubtedly the case that there is much questioning of the extent to which current educational provision (again viewed broadly) shores up economic models based on growth, trade, markets, capitalism, etc (which some term neoliberal), and which are taken to be inimical to both a well-functioning biosphere and human (and perhaps other) well-being. \u00a0But it's not obvious to everybody who thinks about these matters that a steady state culture would solve all the problems, and it is certainly to be hoped that were a transition to a steady state culture begin, there would be as much reflexive questioning of the appropriateness and effectiveness about what's emerging as there is of the current system.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re told (page 7) that, in a transition to a steady state culture, there would be a need for the following:<\/p>\n