Economy for the Common Good … being applued in companies, universities, municipalities … using familiar tools of measuring and accounting but applying them to different indicators and goals that are directly (instead of indirect indicators such as GDP) related to well being:
“GDP is not valued in itself but because it is associated with positive values such as jobs or the fulfilment of basic needs. Upon closer inspection, however, in no single instance is the relationship between rising GDP and the achievement of social goals and values assured. That’s why we propose that social goals should be defined and their achievement measured directly – instead of using the uncertain and unwieldy detour of GDP. The mere fact that a science so very bent on efficiency does not measure the achievement of goals directly but instead proceeds via the detour of monetary indicators, i.e. extreme inefficiency, shows that it is more of a faith community than a serious discipline.”
The concept of Ikigai:
I don’t feel that I’ve been able to live in this convergence. I would also want to see another dimension in it … one that relates to happiness and well-being since I believe it is possible to live in this convergence with negative outcomes and personal sacrifice in well-being and happiness.
I came across Ikigai in this OK, but tedious and not as convincing as I wanted it to be, presentation from Michel Bauwens:
What disappointed me in the Bauwens presentation was that is felt academic and theoretical (which I’ve come to expect from Bauwens) and offered nothing actionable.
The first question that was given to him by the host (Yohai Benkler – which feels like a name I should recognize but don’t) was good but in my opinion faulty. It assumed (and was not challenged) that because past transitions involved war and bloodshed, that the coming / current value transition would also require wars … and asked where those wars would be. The question forced Bauwens into a kind of theoretical prophecy that led to a very high-worded academic but, in my heart, empty response.
The question of violence also touched on the issue of feminine and masculine dominance (which I felt was wrongly framed as men & women) which came up in the presentation and in a followup question.What if these two issues are related. Could it be that if we had more feminine guidance that we could approach transition with softness instead of harshness? Could it be that that transition is already in the making?
During numerous points in the presentation I felt that Alexander’s unfolding wholeness is a key dimension that was missing from it. Unfolding wholeness, in a way, pulls the rug out from the assumption that there is going to be a definitive transition (or that there ever was one). Instead it postulates that we will witness a continuous and gradual development and change (which is hinted at in the presentation). What if we experience “wars” when we resist this kind of natural development and instead try to push systems (natural and human) into forced, mechanistic and usually destructive change that is better aligned with a dominant (and dominating), male and controlling attitude?
Maybe in a more balanced masculine/feminine world Ikigai is a valid diagram. In the male dominates world we live in, it needs a definitive feminine dimension to be complete.