CC BY
4ПУЗЫРИ ИЛИ КИПЯЩИЙ КОТЁЛ? ЭКОСИСТЕМНЫЙ ПОДХОД К КУЛЬТУРЕ, ОКРУЖАЮЩЕЙ СРЕДЕ И КАЧЕСТВУ ЖИЗНИ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
Андре Франциско Пилон
Школа общественного здоровья, Университет Сан-Пауло
The Bubbles or the Boiling Pot? An Ecosystemic Approach to Culture, Environment and Quality of Life
Andre Francisco Pilon
School ofPublic Health, University of Sao Paulo
For the diagnosis and prognosis of the problems of quality of life, a multidisciplinary ecosystemic approach encompasses four dimensions of being-in-the-world, as donors and recipients: intimate, interactive, social and biophysical. Social, cultural and environmental vulnerabilities are understood and dealt with, in different circumstances of space and time, as the conjugated effect of all dimensions of being-in-the-world, as they induce the events (deficits and assets), cope with consequences (desired or undesired) and contribute for change. Instead of fragmented and reduced representations of reality, diagnosis and prognosis of cultural, educational, environmental and health problems considers the connections (assets) and ruptures (deficits) between the different dimensions, providing a planning model to develop and evaluate research, teaching programmes, public policies and field projects. The methodology is participatory, experiential and reflexive; heuristic-hermeneutic processes unveil cultural and epistemic paradigms that orient subject-object relationships; giving people the opportunity to reflect on their own realities, engage in new experiences and find new ways to live better in a better world. The proposal is a creative model for thought and practice, providing many opportunities for discussion, debate and development of holistic projects integrating different scientific domains (social sciences, psychology, education, philosophy, etc.). Key-words: education, culture, politics, society, health, environment.
The Salary of God and the Work of Man
In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Confiding in the excellence of his work, he expected that his divine investment, in the ions of time, would bring forth heavenly dividends; for this, he relied on his own creation. expecting that sentient beings, like man, would, in due time, acknowledge the prominence of his undertaking.
Since then the universe has been continuously unfolding: galaxies gave birth to stars, stars diligently assembled the elements to build an infinity of planets, some planets harboured life; in the Earth, animals spread over the planet, birds excelled with their songs, plants garnished the land with flowers and replenished it with fruits.
As a conscious and animate partner of God, mankind should honour his expectations, bestowing a significant contribution to his endeavour. Respect for life, law-abiding and ethical behaviour, care for others, equity and justice would be God's payment in recognisance for His undertaking.
Would God be satisfied with mankind's partnership in the contemporary world?
All over the world quality of life, natural and man-made environments, physical, social and mental well-
being are eroded by all sorts ofhazards and injuries; political, economical and social disarray normalise atrocious behaviours and violence, in a context of dehumanisation, depersonalisation and reification.
Natural and built environments are impaired, human values that took centuries to develop are annihilated by the overspread violence and criminality, problems accumulate, reality is distorted by segmented public policies, academic formats, mass-media headlines, common sense prejudices and overwhelming market-place's interests.
The future of creation, «a new Earth and new Heavens», depend on the quality of the relationships between men and men and men and nature. Processes and products, principles and actions should walk together, duties and rights, deeds and beliefs should be the faces ofthe same coin; inside and outside should reflect each another.
Although it is clear that there is a strong linkage between individuals, groups, society and environment; this does not exclude that many problems may not be internally soluble within the human community, which is not self-enclosed; we have a relationship to the sky, to the gods, to the nature, to strange forces that we cannot control (47).
The application of ecological systems theory to human development shows that the myth of power and
Fig. 1. Problems should be looked for deep inside the boiling pot, not in the bubbles of its surface.
the resulting conflicts (man versus environment, nations versus nations, classes versus classes, man versus God) ignores the fact that in cybernetic systems the parts can not take unilateral control over the whole or any other part (5).
The polymeric structure ofspace-time pervades the entire universe, thousands of historical events closely interrelate in the genesis of all events (phenomena, processes, actions); the higher is the numbers of levels in the system under research, the more complicated is the polymeric structure of the actual part of the time's metabolic space (30).
The world is not classifiable in different kinds of objects, but in different kinds of connections (19; 10); it can be thought as a kind of a giant hologram, in which, in some implicit sense, a total order is contained in each region of space and time (42). Inwardness and outwardness are complementary aspects of reality.
The micro, meso and macrosystems are complex «layers» of the environment structure, each having an effect on the human development (9). Selfhood, embodiment and environment are extensions of each other, microcosmic «bodies» are continuous with and permeated by the macrocosmic «environment» (32).
According to Binswanger's phenomenological approach (6), being-in-the-world (Lebenswelt), encompasses the «inner world» (Eingenwelt), the «interactive world» (Mitwelt), the «world of men» (Menschenwelt) and the «environment» (Umwelt). Existence should be understood as the focal point of these overlapping «worlds».
Gardiner's model (17) consists of three overlapping spheres, described as the ecosphere, relating to a person's (or groups') physical environment and surroundings, the sociosphere, relating to an individual's net
Fig. 2. Microcosmic «bodies» are continuous with and permeated by the macrocosmic «environment».
interactions with all other people in an environment and the technosphere, encompassing all the person-made things in the world.
A mysterious tissue or matrix underlies and gives rise to both the perceiver and the perceived. Our environment presupposes our perceptions and vital processes, it pre-exists and co-exists (Wirklichkeit), it integrates our experience in the daily life (Lebenswelt), it is also a concept, a result of a conscious process, a domain of «scientific knowledge» (Realität) (45).
Knowledge cannot be identified with the onto-logical reality, it serves the organisation of the experiential world and should be actively built up (2). The relationship between sustainable development and economic growth has been over-emphasised; social justice, solidarity and respect for ecological limits have been neglected (44).
It is not the efficient exploitation of knowledge that matters, but the learning process by which it is created. Due to non-linear relationships, small inputs in systems that are far from equilibrium can trigger massive consequences, as posited by evolutionary thermodynamics, in terms of self-organising systems and sustainable development (37).
Kofler (24), views the unfolding cosmos as an autopoietic process and proposes a general extended view as a real world's theory connected to the different states of knowledge of the different scientific disciplines, from which special extended views could be deduced in view of the different sustainability problems.
Questions of power, status and control are linked to environmental and cultural degradation, climate warming, pollution and looming populations (46). A shared way of apprehending the world, the capacity to respond adequately to the experiences, encounters,
engagements and interactions, depend on the alternation of challenge and support1.
A New Policy for New Ways for Being-in-the-World
Public policies should not be ready-made «patches» put on bad situations to make them «straight», Instead of «mending» individual or social «defects», by focusing on needs, deficiencies and problems, they should be asset-based, internally focused and relationship driven, centered on inner resources and capacities' development (22)
Instead of taking for granted the «bubbles» of the surface (segmented issues), subverting or ignoring what is inside the «boiling pot» (the real problems) (fig. 1 and 2), public policies should pay attention to the relevant factors that are generating the evils of our times, encompassing ethics, governance, justice, equity and social responsibility.
Growth, power, wealth, work and freedom should acquire new meanings (34). Foreign policy, education, politics, economics, health and social welfare must change their current paradigms and practices, building a culture of peace, environment sustainability, non-violence, justice and cooperation as organising principles.
Ethical questions, the conceptual direction and the moral legitimacy of development strategies should be examined, specially by the leaders of academic sectors, which, in the name of a «high status knowledge», have surrendered to specialisation and fragmentation, in a milieu of ethical indifference, moral objectivity and neutralism (8).
Sweeping market-oriented reforms, privatisations, deregulations, resulted in relinquishing state's duties to the private sector (security, health, education); public services barely survive, the «philosophical» problems of ethical, moral and civic education are left aside, in the name of information and communication technologies, presented as a panacea.
In societies which acquiesce to injustice or benefit mostly those in power, inevitably the new technologies exacerbate the gap between the possessed and the marginalised, who will think that, in order to be respected as full-fledged citizens, they should have access to all the products continuously advertised by media propaganda.
In this context, new technological waves will not rescue a devastated environment nor relieve the excluded
Fig. 3. Man as a supportive species (primitive societies) versus man as a dominant species (civilised societies).
(33). When political, economical and cultural disarray normalises all sorts of unethical procedures and transgressions, inequities, violence and atrocious behaviour are looked by people as part of their daily life.
To restore safety and security we need to restore faith and trust, core beliefs and values («social capital»). Historic evidence indicates that significant community development takes place only when local community people are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort for community involvement and education (20).
To understand and resolve our present crisis, the concept of man as a «dominant» species should be reversed by man as a supportive one (fig. 3); the identification of «progress» with individual or corporate self-interest and the way human beings deal with each other must be changed (7), in view of a new political vision to govern the world.
Life should acquire a new kind of normality, not by repairing humans, but by enhancing them (31). In a cultural, social and environmental degenerated condition, «repairing» means the tentative to restate a former «normal» level of functioning, «enhancing» creates new physical, social and mental environments, which are essential to live better in a better world.
Current development strategies tend to ignore, underestimate and undermine cultural values and environments essential to a healthy human development. An ethical and spiritual world view, security, sustainability and stability, mutually dependent, respectful and enriching values depend on systems built along the time and actively sustained within a specific society (41).
A culture grounded on market economics tends to produce human beings who have trouble being moral
1 In this sense, «strategic communication» (40) implies moving away • from people as the objects for change... to people as the essential component of the change; • from designing, testing and delivering messages... to supporting dialogue and debate; • from the didactic conveying of information from technical experts... to sensitively placing that information into the dialogue and debate; • from a focus on individual behaviours... to social norms, policies, culture and a supportive environment; • from persuading people to do something... to negotiating the best way forward in a partnership process; • from technical experts in 'outside' agencies dominating and guiding the process... to the people most affected by the issues of concern playing a central role.
DIAGNOSIS OF THE EVENTS
ELICITING NEW EVENTS
IMPACT ON EACH DIMENSION
INTIMATE
SUBJECTS' COGNITIVE AND
AFFECTIVE ACTUAL STATUS
DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECTS' EXISTENTIAL SELF-CONTROL
ENHANCEMENT OF SUBJECTS' WELL-BEING
INTERACTIVE
GROUPS'AND COMMUNITIES'
DYNAMICS AND COHESION
DEVELOPMENT OF GROUPS AND PRO-ACTIVE COMMUNITIES
ENHANCEMENT OF GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES
SOCIAL
PUBLIC POLICIES LAW ENACTMENT CITIZENSHIP PARTICIPATION
DEVELOPMENT
OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND CITIZENSHIP
ENHANCEMENT OF POLICIES AND CITIZENSHIP
BIOPHYSICAL
NATURALAND MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTS BEINGS, THINGS
PROMOTION OF NATURALAND MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTS
ENHANCEMENT OF OVERALL ENVIRONMENT
Fig. 4. Imbrication of the four dimensions of the world in the genesis and treatment of the problems.
and developing coherent selves (39). Most of the megac-ities of the world are deeply troubled places: economies sputter, social ties weaken, political power fades. Crime and violence, joblessness, homelessness, gangs and drugs proliferate (22).
Many cities of the so-called emergent world are recognised as problem-ridden, economically unequal and intrinsically violent2. While the elite enjoy life in fortified enclaves, most of the city dwellers live in makeshift slum housing, often without access to the basic social services (health, education) and dependent on criminality for survival.
The link between environmental stress and violence has been verified in different studies (21), with severe consequences. It is not a surprise that social unrest has been increasing exponentially, specially among those that immigrated to the large cities in search of a better life and are hampered by multiple obstacles.
The social vulnerabilities, that affect the poorest people in many cities of the world, has a cascade effect on the entire population. Chronic deficiencies in education, security, sanitation, dwelling, transport sway over all the inhabitants3; due to the outspread violence, most people become, by and large, uninvolved in civic life (4).
«Social inclusion» policies only accommodate people to the prevailing order, they do not empower them (26); once «included», a new wave of «egocentric producers and consumers» (12) will reproduce the very system responsible for their former exclusion, abusing cultural values and nature in the name of «progress» (43).
Progressive social change groups must incorporate a deeper spiritual understanding into their work (27). Contrary to the adversary paradigm, the mutuality paradigm is based on the assumption that the other is a friend, a colleague and an ally (14). Protecting relationships is
often overlooked, when learning is abstract and decontextualised (25).
Besides economical and political equity, human rights include cultural and spiritual values, the preservation of rich natural and man-made environments, the engendering of beauty, creativity, conviviality, privacy, tranquillity and peace. Social and economical advancement should not be a private question, but a collective one.
Peace building, acceptance of ethical norms requires a multitude of ethically interpreted and ordered social experiences, a capacity for
having morally relevant interests as the bases of rights-bearing, an empathy with people, including those regarded as alien, or even hostile, a broad, universally rationalised cultural knowledge (48).
Freedom and responsibility are sides of the same coin: being accountable for one another (even for other's faults, if one fails to intervene), doing or abstaining from something in view of others, are essential to authentic freedom (28). In a society with any organising principle at all, individual rights suppose the assumption of collective responsibilities.
Freedom for is not the same as freedom from (15): authentic freedom or freedom for presupposes existential control, a capacity to make adequate choices; the latter merely indicates the absence of exterior constraints, the former requires an ethical ground, preparedness (there is no «freedom» to play a piano when one does not know how).
Facade democracies usually try to repair «bad» situations to make them «straight», ignoring that «duties» and «rights» can not be prescribed in adverse political, economical, social and cultural conditions: it is a non sense to prescribe that everybody has a «right to play a piano» when the piano is not available and nobody knows how.
The emergence of private authority has eroded state's power and the utopia of global governance in the benefit of multinational corporations, financial institutions and organised crime (18). Neoliberalism atomises society and breaks all bonds save contractual ones, smashing actual and potential networks of solidarity in the name of the so-called progress (38).
Globalisation has brought violence, uprootings, displacements, discordances, war, genocide, hunger, inequities, ecological vulnerability and deep social division (3). More and more it becomes difficult to distinguish between «legal» and «illegal» strategies and methods,
2 Increasing urban sprawl and related environmental degradation; car-dependent communities, longer commutes to work; traffic gridlock, poor air quality and loss ofgreen space, a suburban mono-culture that lacks diversity; increased air pollution and sedentary lifestyles ask for a revolution that demands a long-term commitment (11).
3 Indicators like age, income, employment, household, health status, gender, ethnic origin, perception of risks and education are the counterpart of the degree of government preparedness and capabilities to face the impact ofsocial and natural hazards (13).
Table I. Dimensions' enhancement in the ecosystemic model of culture
_Donors_
Recipients INTIMATE INTERACTIVE SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL
INTIMATE Creativeness Support Services: Vitality
INTERACTIVE Cooperation Cohesiveness Diversity: Niches
SOCIAL Citizenship Partnerships Organisation Spaces
BIOPHYSICAL Care: Preservation Sustainment Equilibrium
Table II. Dimensions' disruption in the non-ecosystemic model of culture
Inflictors
Victims
INTIMATE
INTERACTIVE
SOCIAL
BIOPHYSICAL
INTIMATE
Solypsism
Heteronomy
Subjection
Predatory
INTERACTIVE
Abdication
Fanaticism
Corporativism
Exploitation
SOCIAL
Domination
Cooptation
Totalitarian
Spoliation
BIOPHYSICAL
Agression
Dispersion
Extinction
Savageness
which become very much alike in the assemblage of political and economical interests.
The world generalised problems can not be sorted out by segmented projects, which ignores micro, meso and macro relationships. Foreign policy, education, politics, economics, should change their current paradigms and practices, in view of a culture of peace, environmental sustain-ability, justice and cooperation as organising principles (35).
A profound change in the present ways of being-in-the-world is imperative. In a cultural, social and environmental degenerated condition, distinction between self-interest and mankind survival is crucial, social vulnerabilities can not be disassociated from environmental, economical, political, cultural and ethical considerations.
The Ecosystemic Approach to Ouality of Life
A process ofchange is not a matter ofthrowing out «old things», nor acquiring «new things», but the development ofa new way for being-in-the-world, that asks for both design and action; it is useless to change the furniture in a room, without a new concept for living in it, an architect has a project for a house before building it.
Notwithstanding the pervasiveness of marketing in society (1), we should not take current prospects for granted and project into the future the trends of today (exploratory forecast), but define new goals and explore new paths to reach them (normative forecast) (23), in view of new forms of being-in-the-world.
Instead of «repairing» «bad» situations to make them «straight», problems of difficult settlement or solution should be assessed in different contexts and settings, as expressions of the interplay of the dynamic configurations encompassing the different dimensions of being-in-the-world. intimate, interactive, social and biophysical (36).
The four dimensions must be dealt with simultaneously, as mutually entangled donors and recipients, considering their connections and ruptures and how actual and potential deficits and defaults affect each other, as they induce the events (deficits and assets), cope
with effects (desired or undesired) and contribute for change (expected outcomes):
• intimate dimension: core beliefs and values, coping abilities (cognitive, affective and cultural), self-esteem, resilience, civic profile, capabilities, expectations, desires, existential control;
• interactive dimension: networks, communities, groups' cohesion and mutual support (family, neighbourhood, workplace, religious and political affiliations), friendship ties;
• social dimension: public policies, educational, cultural, public health and socio-economic status, local, national and global citizenship, partnerships and resources; civic engagement;
• biophysical dimension: biological endowment, matter and energy, fauna, flora, land, water, air, natural and man-made environments, scenarios, landscapes, buildings, artifacts.
Analysis implies the assessment of the actual and potential role of each dimension in view of the configurations formed by the imbrication of the different dimensions in the space-time continuum (fig. 4); in this sense, overall policies and projects, in different domains (well fare, education, health, environment, etc.) should:
• define the problems within the «boiling pot» instead of reducing them to the bubbles of the surface (fragmented, taken for granted problems);
• deal with the events as products of a dynamic field, intertwining the four dimensions of being-in-the-world: intimate, interactive, social and biophysical;
• verify the deficits and assets of the dimensions as donors and recipients, in view of their relationships, in a mutually entangled web (configurations);
• revive the singularity (identity, proper characteristics) of and solidarity (reciprocity, mutual support) between all dimensions, strengthening connections and sealing ruptures.
• consider the development of an ecosystemic model of culture, in terms of the balance between all the dimensions of the world (opposite to the current non-ecosystemic model).
Table III. Dimensions of beinng-in-the-world
INTIMATE ITERACTIVE SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL
HEALTH SUBJECTIVE GROUP COLLECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS WELL-BEING DEVELOPMENT WELL-FARE BALANCE
DEPRESSION PROJECT GROUP SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
(EXOGENOUS) OF LIFE SUPPORT OPPORTUNITIES CONDITIONS
SETTLEMENTS
SEXUALLY EXISTENTIAL PEERS VALUES SOCIAL PHYSICAL
TRANSMITTED CONTROL (FIDELITY) MOVEMENTS PROTECTION
DISEASES (DEFIDENCE) PUBLIC POLICIES
ADOLESCENT EMOTIONAL FAMILY COHESION COMMUNITY LIFE SPACES
PREGNANCY MATURITY «FAIRE ACCUEIL» SERVICES
VIOLENCE EMOTIONAL LEADERSHIP SOCIAL DWELLINGS
DRUG-ADDICTION BALANCE SUB-CULTURES INSERTION CULTURAL SURROUNDINGS
(RESILIENCY) VALUES, BELIEFS MODELS
In an ecosystemic model of culture, there is a dynamic equilibrium, interconnection, interaction and reciprocity between the different dimensions of the world [table I]. In a non-ecosystemic model, they drift apart or seek a hegemony (individuals, groups, societies and environment are in conflict); disruption, isolation, unbalances, catastrophes, disease, famine and violence follow soon [table II].
The Work in the Socio-Cultural Learning Niches
The objective is not to solve taken for granted problems (the «bubbles» in the surface), but to unveil and work with the dynamic and complex configurations in the «boiling pot», encompassing the mutual role of individuals, groups, society and environment to understand how problems arise and how to deal with them, at micro, meso and macro level.
Experiential, collaborative, innovative and socially beneficial projects in the socio-cultural learning niches should develop a network of hope, dignity and self-reliance: individuals who think critically, communicate effectively, value diversity, act ethically and show an empathy with people, including those regarded as alien, or even hostile.
Different fronts and actors should be involved, encompassing research and teaching programmes, development of public policies, mass-media communication,. governmental and non-governmental organisations, lay and religious leaderships, community building advocacy. .How the experience is defined and dealt with is a crucial aspect in the process of change
Working with phenomena (how reality appears in a specific space-time horizon of understanding, feeling and action), requires an adequate learning environment, which is essential to moral and democratic education (29). The methodology in the socio-cultural learning niches should be participatory, experiential and reflexive, giving the opportunity to engage in new experiences.
To develop awareness and capabilities beyond the traditional schemes of thought, feeling and action, subjective
and objective realities should be entangled, encompassing the alien that we strive to understand and the familiar that we take for granted (16); this creates an «excess ofmeaning», in view of new paradigms of knowledge and action.
Heuristic-hermeneutic experiences unveil cultural and epistemic backgrounds and subject-object relationships in a specific space-time horizon of understanding, feeling and action (table III). Judgements and contentions of the different discourses provide the basis for analysis, debates, agreements and disagreements in view of old and new assumptions.
Innovative projects to develop the ecosystemic conditions to live better in a better world (fig. 4), depend on collaborative experiential learning and communicating processes within the socio-cultural learning niches, of a network of hope, dignity and self-reliance, consisting of individuals who think critically, communicate effectively, value diversity and act ethically.
The objective is not to solve taken for granted problems (the «bubbles» of the surface), but to unveil and work with the dynamic and complex configurations in the «boil-ing pot», considering individuals, groups, society and environments as components and active parts of the different issues of difficult settlement or solution in the world (table III is an application to health-related problems).
The heuristic-hermeneutic processes in the socio-cultural learning niches could take different forms, as subsequently described:
• Unveiling subject-object relationships and contents (intimate dimension): Subject-object relationships and the range of experiences in the four dimensions of being-in-the-world can be unveiled by asking the participants to write down in a piece of paper (not identified) whatever comes to their minds in connection with circumstantial images or objects (previously selected to catch their eyes, like bottle caps linked by a string), which are passed along in the group.
• Sharing perceptions in the group (interactive dimension): The written statements are subsequently distributed out of sort to the participants, who share their perceptions by reading aloud their narratives to the group, as a form to uncover the different subject-object relation-
ships4 and contents retained by the participants (table IV); the experience goes beyond individual initial perceptions and is enriched by the perceptions of the group.
• Acting on the cultural and natural milieu (social and biophysical dimensions): Old and new forms of being-in-the-world are connected with traditional and alternative configurations, alternative forms are developed by the new experiences in the group, cultural, social, political, economical and environmental issues are analysed in view of different systems of culture (ecosystemic or non-ecosystemic).
• Developing a new project of life: As a result of a participatory, experiential and reflexive process, the participants have the opportunity to reflect on
their own realities and elaborate new Fig. 5. Violence and peace in the ecosystemic and non-ecosystemic models of
forms to deal with the world, developing culture. the capabilities to analyse and act upon present and future events, in a new horizon of understanding, feeling and action, in view of configurations formed by the interplay of the different dimensions of being-in-the-world.
Conclusions
Research Findings:
• How to deal with the enclosure of the cultural and environmental commons by the current fragmented public policies and reduced conceptual models, in view of an integrated multidisciplinary ecosystemic approach.
• How to work with the dynamic configurations intertwining the four dimensions of being-in-the-world and develop their singularity and reciprocity, enhancing the connections and sealing the ruptures between them.
• How to develop ethics, education, culture, natural and man-made environments, physical, social and mental well-being, as by-products of an ecosystemic
model of culture, in view of acceptance, consistency, effectiveness, evidence and endurance. Policy Lessons:
• Assessment, planning, development and evaluation of public policies, teaching and research projects and community programmes should encompass the four dimensions of being-in-the-world.
• The circumstances that affect individuals, groups, society, natural and man-made environments depend on each other and must be supported simultaneously in view of their singularities and mutual balance;
• Ethics, education, culture, human rights, public policies, physical, social and mental well-being, citizenship, natural and man-made environments and quality of life are strongly affected by the different models of culture (ecosystemic or non-ecosystemic — fig. 5).
• New paradigms ofgrowth, power, wealth, work and freedom should be developed to face the current economic, social, political, cultural, educational and environmental turmoil.
4 Subject-object relationships can be analyzed in terms ofdifferent categories:
• Appropriation: Construction ofnew forms of being-in-the-world, alteration of cognitive, affective and conative paradigms.
• Common-sense: Conformity to established, commonplace, stereotyped ways of seeing things, without further questioning.
• Academic: Reduction to logical categories and frozen schemes of thought to achieve closure, classifying and describing.
• Dependency: Trust on exterior authority to describe and qualify own experience, alienation, bewilderment, confusion.
• Resistance: Resistance to being involved, failure to see any meaning in the experience.
• Dogmatism: Adherence to fixed paradigms and strict forms of being-in-the-world.
Литература
1. Ait-ouyahia H, Seaman S. Marketing Needs the Humanities: The Case for Philosophy. Fourth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, Cartage — 2006. [online]: http://h06.cgpublisher.com/propos-als/391/index_html
2. Allen P. Models of Evolutionary Self-organization in Social and Economic Systems in «Complexity Science and the Exploration ofthe Emerging World», Workshop. The University of Texas at Austin, April 17, 2004 [online]: http://order.ph.utexas.edu/PAllen.pdf
3. American Anthropological Association, Bringing the Past into the Present. 104th Annual Meeting, Washington DC, 2005.
4. Baiocchi G. The Citizens of Porto Alegre. Boston Review, March/April 2005. [online} http://bostonreview.net/BR31.2/baiocchi.html
5. Bateson G. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. Ballantine Books, New York, 1979.
6. Binswanger L. 1957. Being-in-the-world, London, Souvenir Press.
7. Bookchin M.. What Is Social Ecology? in Zimmerman, ME Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
8. Bowers C. How Universities Contribute to the Enclosure of the Cultural and Environmental Commons, 2006. online: http://www.loveembodied.org/nsp-blog/article.php?story=20061014185805582
9. Bronfenbrenner U. Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Sage Publications, Inc, London, 2004.
10. Capra F. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. Harper Collins, 2002.
11. Caplan D. Creating The Natural City By Managing Growth Renew Canada May/June 2006 http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:rgVBdJVP02cJ: www.renewcanada.net/themes/light/images/Caplan-ReNew-05-06.pdf+Creating+the+Natural+City+by+Managing+Growth&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=1
12. Chermayeff S. & Tzonis A. Shape of community. Realization of human potential. Middlesex, Penguin Books, 1971.
13. Dwyer A, Zoppou C., Nielsen O., Day S., Roberts S. 2004. Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geoscience Australia Record 2004/14. [online]: http://www.ga.gov.au/ image_cache/GA4267.pdf
14. Fellman G. Rambo and the Dalai Lama: The Compulsion to Win and its Threat to Human Survival. Albany: Suny Press, 1998. Online: http://people.bran-deis.edu/~fellman/intro-essay.html
15. Fromm E. Escape from Freedom. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York.1941.
16. G^.amer H. G. 1977. Philosophical hermeneutics. University of California Press, Berkeley, U.S.A.
17. Gardiner W. L. (1989). Forecasting, planning, and the future of the information society. In P. Goumain (Ed.), High technology workplaces: Integrating technology, management, and design for productive work environments (pp. 27—39). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
18. Hall R B. and.. Biersteker T. J. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Series: Cambridge Studies in International Relations (No. 85). Brown University, Rhode Island. 2003.
19. Heisenbo-g W. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York, Harper and Row, 1958.
20. Helliwell J. F. and Putnam R. D. The social context of well-being. One contribution of 12 to a Discussion Meeting Issue 'The science of well-being: integrating neurobiology, psychology and social science'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 359, Number 1449 / September 29, 2004: 1435—1446.
21. Homer-Dixon T. F. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence, Princeton University Press, 2006.
22. Kretzmann J. P. and McKnight J. L. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets, Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, 1993.
23. Jungk R. 1974. Pari sur l'homme. Ed. Robert Laffont, Paris.
24. Kofler W. A «<general extended view» ofour world as basis for «<special extended views» for sectoral aspects and disciplines and an «applied extended view
for sustainability». In: Abstracts of the International Conference on Environment: Survival and Sustainability-ESS2007, Nicosia, Educational Foundation of Near East University, 2007: 774—775.
25. Konai H. Thaman Nurturing Relationships: A Pacific Perspective of Teacher Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, 2005. [online]: http://wwwunescobkkorg/index.php?id=3811
26. Labonte R 2004. Social inclusion/exclusion: dancing the dialectic. Health Promotion International, 19 (1) 115—121.
27. Lerner M. Building a Spiritual Left. [online]: http://dragonflymedia.com/por-tal/2005/06/lerner.html
28. Levinas E. Autrement qu'etre ou au-dela de l'essence. Kluwer Academic, Paris, 1974.
29. Lind G. The meaning and measurement of moral judgement competence revisited — A dual-aspect model. In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, Eds., Contemporary Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and Education. Hampton Press, Cresskill. NJ, U.S.A., 2003.
30. Lisin A. V. and Platonenko V. I. Philosophy of time in medicine. The problem of ethical time. In: Science without borders. Transactions of the International Academy ofScience. H &E, (2), 2005/2006: 104—115.
31. Miah A. Be Very Afraid: Cyborg Athletes, Transhuman Ideals & Posthumanity. The Journal of Evolution and Technology 13 (2), 2003.
32. Morin E. Introduction a une politique de l'homme. Seuil, Paris, 1965.
33. Mooney P. Hype and Hope: A past and future perspective on new technologies for development. Development, (49) 16—22. 2006 [online]: http://www.pal-grave-joumals.com/development/joumal/v49/n4/full/1100305a.html
34. O'Sullivan P. E. 1987. Environment science and environment philosophy. The Int'l J. of Environment Studies, 28: 257—267.
35. Peace Alliance Foundation The Mission ofthe Peace Alliance Foundation (home page) [online]: http://www.peacealliancefound.org/content/blogsection/29/93/
36. Pilon A. F. Living Better in a Better World. The Ecosystemic Approach to Quality ofLife. The Communication Initiative, 2003 [online]. http://wwwcom-minit.com/pmodels/sld-8179.html
37. Prigogine I. From being to becoming, Freeman, San Francisco 1980.
38. Rapley J. Human development:. A conversation with Woodstock International Visiting Fellows; 2003. [online]: http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/wood-stock/report/r-fea64a.htm
39. Riker J. Ethics and Contemporary Life. Seminar, Colorado College, 2006. [online} http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/ED/TeacherScholarsProgramCoverPag e0607.pdf
40. Rockefeller Foundation. Communication and Social Change Network. Exploring the development of indicators derived from a social change and social movement perspective The Communication Initiative Forum. [online]: http://www.comminit.com/socialchange/scfulleval/sld-1974.html
41. Ryan William F., S. J. Culture, Spirituality & Economic Development — Opening a Dialogue. International Development Research Center, 1995. [online]: http://www.comminit.com/ma2003/sld-8630.html
42. Shainberg D. Vortices of thought in the implicate order. In Hiley, B. J. & peat, F. D. Quantum Implications. Essays in honour of David Bohm. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London, 1994.
43. Tsipko A. Le socialisme; la vie de la societe et de l'homme. Ed. du Progres, Moscow, 1985.
44. Verburg R M., Wiegel V. On the compatibility of sustainability and economic growth.. Environmental Ethics, 19: 247—265. 1997.
45. Wallner F. E., Peschl F. M. Realism and General Methodology Phenomena in Cohen, R. S. Realism and Anti-Realism in the Philosophy of Science. Kluwer Academic, New York, 1999.
46. Wilson E. O. The Future of Life Random House, 2003.
47. Wood D. Thinking against the grain. An interview by Darren Hutchinson, Fall 2000. [online}
view.html
48. Znaniecki F. 1935. Ludzie terazniejsi a cywilizacja przyszlosci (The People of Today and the Civilization of Tomorrow), Ksiaznica Atlas, Lwow, Poland.
