You don’t need to know the answer …

Getting caught up with Bryan Alexander’s brilliant invitation to read and reflect on We Make The Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change over the next few weeks.  Really enjoying the reflections of a great group of folks.

I discovered the 1981 Bill Moyers interview with Myles Horton when Bryan suggested the Horton/Freire dialogue a couple weeks ago.  I decided to use the video as a jumping off point to familiarize myself with Horton as I was already familiar with the work and influence of Freire.

Listening to Horton recalled the stories and songs of Utah Phillips for me:

the essence of contract is agreement
not coercion or obedience
and agreement is sacred
what can one say? i will not obey

I read Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 today and found myself highlighting many passages from Myles:

I got to the place where I was terribly concerned about how I could relate my values to society. At that time I said it’s not important to be good, it’s important to be good for something. But, what was that something I could be good for, and how could I figure out how to be useful in society and make a contribution?

I think the problem is that most people don’t allow themselves to experiment with ideas, because they assume that they have to fit into the system. They say how can I live out these things I believe in within the capitalist system, within the subsystem of capitalism, the microcosm of capitalism, the school system and within the confines of respectability, acceptance. Consequently, they don’t allow themselves to think of any other way of doing things. I don’t think there’s anything unique in having the kind of ideas that we have. That’s kind of nickel-a- bushel stuff, I think. I just think most people can’t think outside the socially approved way of doing things and consequently don’t open up their minds to making any kind of discoveries. I think you have to think outside the conventional frameworks.

… the way you really learn is to start something and learn as you go along. You don’t have to know it in advance because if you know it in advance you kill it by clamping this down on the people you’re dealing with.

They’ve got other problems and we don’t have any answers. We didn’t have any trouble dealing with that because we were intellectually prepared and emotionally prepared. We had to do some fast shifting around though, because we still hadn’t learned how to respond to people, but we were committed to doing it. Once that commitment is made, then you do it. You do whatever it takes. We had to laugh at ourselves for thinking that we could figure out in advance what to do.

So to embolden people to act, the challenge has got to be a radical challenge. It can’t be a little simplistic reform that reformers think will help them. It’s got to be something that they know out of experience could possibly bring about a change. And we sell people like that short by assuming that they can take a little baby step and isn’t this wonderful. If they can see something that’s challenging, something that they believe would change things for them, and if they can see a path that they could move on towards that goal, then I think something can be done.

You don’t need to know the answer. You can help people get the answers. You have to know something; they know something. You have to respect their knowledge, which they don’t respect, and help them to respect their knowledge. These seeds were planted there.

 

“You don’t need to know the answer” is how I am approaching Bryan’s great questions for Chapters 1 and 2, but I know something for sure – Horton’s voice is resonating deeply with me.  Looking forward to reading more of the book with everyone.

 

 

 

The Representatives of Something That Couldn’t Be Negotiated With

But one of the people who did understand how to use this new power was Donald Trump. Trump realized that there was now no future in building housing for ordinary people, because all the government grants had gone. But he saw there were other ways to get vast amounts of money out of the state. Trump started to buy up derelict buildings in New York and he announced that he was going to transform them into luxury hotels and apartments. But in return, he negotiated the biggest tax break in New York’s history, worth 160 million. The city had to agree because they were desperate, and the banks, seeing a new opportunity, also started to lend him money. And Donald Trump began to transform New York into a city for the rich, while he paid practically nothing.

Clip via: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/02d9ed3c-d71b-4232-ae17-67da423b5df5.

Two-part Village Voice piece on that era at:

 

 

 

A Ceaseless Shape-Shifting

As one journalist put it, “It’s a strategy of power that keeps any opposition “constantly confused – “a ceaseless shape-shifting that is unstoppable “because it is indefinable.” Meanwhile, real power was elsewhere – hidden away behind the stage, exercised without anyone seeing it. And then the same thing seemed to start happening in the West.

Many of the facts that Trump asserted were also completely untrue. But Trump didn’t care. He and his audience knew that much of what he said bore little relationship to reality. This meant that Trump defeated journalism – because the journalists’ central belief was that their job was to expose lies and assert the truth. With Trump, this became irrelevant. Not surprisingly, Vladimir Putin admired this. The liberals were outraged by Trump. But they expressed their anger in cyberspace, so it had no effect – because the algorithms made sure that they only spoke to people who already agreed with them. Instead, ironically, their waves of angry messages and tweets benefitted the large corporations who ran the social media platforms. One online analyst put it simply, “Angry people click more.” It meant that the radical fury that came like waves across the internet no longer had the power to change the world. Instead, it was becoming a fuel that was feeding the new systems of power and making them ever more powerful.

via http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/02d9ed3c-d71b-4232-ae17-67da423b5df5

 

Snowden on Federation

@snowden at http://realfuturefair.com/ … full video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUCCCEKrU8o

There’s a big controversy happening right now – about this election particularly – regarding Facebook. There’s this claim – it really hasn’t been proven and hasn’t really been substantiated, but it’s getting pretty popular, where they say, “Facebook ruined the election because the showed fake news. Now, if that were true and if that were possible and Facebook just did put fake news up and down their pages all day long and we were actually persuaded by that .. I think that’s actually a very sad indictment of our democracy. That our voters could be so easily misled. But, where it true, and there’s some evidence that it may be – this gets into a bigger challenge which is the lack of competition. The fact that there seems to be no alternative to the largest services, because of the ‘first mover advantage’ when you get a Google in place, when you get a Facebook in place, when you get a Twitter in place – they never seem to leave. This brings us to – ‘how do we resolve this?’ – federation is the traditional technical response to the danger of centralization of power and the danger of single points of failure where if one company makes a bad decision or one service provider makes a bad decision – we all suffer for it. Instead, we have what we have what are called ‘federated services’ where instead of one Facebook we have ten-thousand Facebooks all of which are connected together and all of which can impose their own rules. So if one Facebook clone has problems they can start to be filtered, they can be scrutinized a little more carefully, people use that less, it becomes less popular, there is a stigma associated with it. The Silicon Valley desire for massive, world-eating services – this scale that takes over not just all our country, but others, are asking us to accept a status quo in which we set that aside, we set aside that competition in favour of scale. It think we should be particularly cautious about embracing this and taking it as something that should always be the case because when we look at monopolies throughout the past they have grown in a very quiet mode, eventually achieved a platform of prominence, operated reasonably carefully and rationally at that period to maximize their profits, and once they’ve gotten so big that no one can stop them, they get less careful and get more muscular over time and eventually they end up trampling not just their customers but paradigms in ways that I think we need to be very cautious about integrating not just into our networks but into our understanding of what structures are operating within our society that don’t really bother us and that seem normal.