Lost communities, states, and cultures   (Published: 09.06.2020)

The historiography mainly reflects the views of the winners of world change in the ex-post evaluation of various conflicts, crises, and the use of force by mankind. Often, in those situations, community systems comparable to physical-level victims in conflict management die or become non-viable. The dead physical is identified with mourning and a funeral is held for them. But when communities die, they are not considered a funeral for them, even though they are similarly living beings in the sense of producing and using information.

Community as part of being

Both among humans, in the animal kingdom, and in the rest of the organic world, there is an interdependent communal existence within the community that is organized as a counterbalance to the limited consciousness of the individual and has its own internal order. In an inorganic reality, energy and its three forces: preparation, cohesiveness, and liberation in the outlined whole have similar elements to the functional digital and social values-colored whole based on the shared consciousness of human societies.

Tasks and characteristics of the state

Community is an elementary part of the state system. The state does not exist without the exchange of information and information from different sources: The state must be able to generate information created with different values ​​and promoting its cohesion, based on shared social values ​​in the human community. A state based on democracy does not fully meet this requirement for the free formation of information and the dissemination of various information, because democratic thinking was born, spread and often also died when a monolithic world of values ​​came to power in human communities in the context of various change processes.

The thinking of the world is not monolithic about the role of the state in human communities on earth. However, there is a consensus that they are still needed despite the existing global structures. Also, in those continents where the development history of the state has been realized differently than the so-called in the western industrialized countries as part of their own ideological and social development, there is still potential for different developments. The period of the Enlightenment and the constitutional state development the space of movement for the individual is dualistic. Based on Hegel’s thinking, 19th-century communal actors created two ‘ideal states’ that take advantage of a common physical reality and use force to safeguard their interests at the expense of universal human and social values.

Cultures as a value base of states

The exchange of things and phenomena across cultural boundaries is one of the basic concepts of anthropology. It begins with interactions between individuals and is also involved in more complex intercultural exchanges. It is a process between communities that should also be the normative basis of today’s development-driven processes. In development aid projects and in the current 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals, the objectives of the action do not start from the interaction and issues perceived by both parties.

Africa, Asia and the Americas and oceanic islands are full of dead states and cultures that have no role to play in determining the goals and / or content of global development programs. The current Development Policy is not interactive because it does not recognize the evolution of life on Earth other than the history of trade and the political development of the world, the development of the post-Renaissance worldview, the great expeditions, the natural sciences development and the political thinking of the Enlightenment / post-Enlightenment ”as yet undivided world ”, which in colonial policy was shared between the leading states of the time.

Reassessment of colonial time

The starting point for interaction-based development thinking consists of communal thinking, which is not based on democracy, representativeness, or human rights, but on human rights and responsibilities towards life on our planet. Since the establishment of the DAC in 1960, the priority of the OECD's development goals has been to eradicate poverty and increase equality between people and countries. Beneficiary countries are grouped into different categories, based on their own development and economic performance.

The global development projects of the 1992 Rio Conference on the Environment and its successor, as well as the two subsequent global development programs (MDG 2000 and Agenda 2030), aim to address both poverty management and the environment as two priority areas in global development programs. commitment to these global programs. Results have also been achieved in many sectors, especially in health, education and training reform.

In the current global development policy, things are going very differently. There are programs and methodological approaches that operate using the oldest logic, or causal thinking. In problem solving, it means looking for and analyzing the causal consequence of relationships in things that result from things that have happened over a longer period. Both priority areas in global development are the result of post-Renaissance development on Earth, with the ability of small states and cultures to defend themselves against “world conquerors” continued for hundreds of years and gave rise to the socio-economic consequences of our time.

In a dichotomous world in the mid-19th century, the current Western industrialized countries were more fortunate in economic and social development than supporters of the Marxist school interpreting Hegel in Eastern Europe, which lacked a built-in competition mechanism between the public and private sectors. It was also reflected in the well-being of the people of the socialist countries and their identification with their state structure. Marxism also failed to achieve results in the former colonies in the implementation of social equality in the former colonies.

Limited information platform for development

“Omnia mea mecum porto” - everything I own, carry with me, is an old wisdom in Western philosophy. It can be interpreted in many ways. In developmental philosophy, it is a strong indication of how things can be changed at the individual and community level. There are things important and useful to people no matter where they are derived or learned from. Development cooperation and sustainable development cannot achieve things that are beyond the control of the recipient individual or community consciousness.

Not carrying water in a well to stay - is an old Finnish proverb about the same thing from a slightly different perspective. At the same time, it also reminds us that there is always great wisdom in the old wisdoms as well. In environmental matters, attention is currently being paid to climate issues, which is a consequence but not the real root cause of the poor state of the environment. Similarly, in the fight against the Covid-19 virus, governments in different countries have developed, which is also understandable, restrictions on movement related to epidemic management in different countries and at their borders. Is Agenda 2030 a valid agenda at the global level if it does not provide the tools to address and manage pandemic issues and their root causes.

Development of global programs

The global development community will not be able to interact adequately when all its “eggs are in one G2G basket”. Since the 1960s, the OECD, which coordinates development cooperation methodology, has done significant work in developing development cooperation tools and methods. At the same time, its own G2G-based structure prevents it from seeing the processes of change outlined and in transition countries. The break-up of the Soviet Union and the joint program of Western industrialized countries in the FSU countries in Russia and the former Soviet republics are an example of preparing for and guiding change “without better knowledge of the internal structure and functioning of the country to be changed”.

A month ago, I have this exact same way on the home page written my assessment of the change in the Soviet Union in 1969 after the Victory day festivities and observations this year, 2020, through following the all-day Victory Day broadcasts from Moscow Channel 1. Moscow has changed, so has my own worldview, with the implementation of more than 20 Technical Assistance programs FSU countries. As a reference, the undersigned is assisting in the start-up and business development of about 80 leading Western ICT companies in the 1980s in the former Soviet Union. Such  comparative experiences could be made available to all companies and authorities involved in the development community.

 

© Asumer Oy / Heikki K. Auvinen, 2020 - All rights reserved.


« Back
 
News & Commentaries
29.06.2020 Russia and the memes of Russianness More >>
09.06.2020 Lost communities, states, and cultures More >>
17.05.2020 At the Red Square after Victory Day celebration More >>
04.05.2020 Time, space, and movement with SDGs More >>
01.03.2020 Knowledge in Russian Society More >>

Archive >>
 

Asumer Oy, Espoo, Finland   e-mail address: info@asumer.fi  Telephone + 358 400 638 660

 

 

©2020 Heikki K. Auvinen - Development Consultant - Asumer Oy