| |
Participant account:
Youth return the future to Dubrovnik
Sohail Inayatullah - Professor, Tamkang
University, Sunshine Coast University, Queensland University of
Technology (www.metafuture.org)
"The return of the Goddess in Dalmatia"
"Dubrovnik avoiding mcdonaldization, and creating a new vision
and practice of globalization"
"Neohumanistic education transforming Balkan pedagogy"
These were some of the memes that were spread at the New Wave:
Vision of the youth conference held in Dubrovnik from August 27th
to September 2. The meeting was organized by the young people of
Dubrovnik, in cooperation with dozens of nongovernmental organizations
from Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Greece (such as Centre for
Neohumanist Studies, Croatia; PCAP International or Prevention of
Cruelty to Plants and Animals; Mali Korak or Centre for Culture
of Peace and Nonviolence; Ziva Zemlja, Living Earth; CCI, Centre
for Civil Initiatives; Fractal Belgrade; and AMURT Hellas) and with
sponsorship from Friendly Favors, Gaia Trust, British Council Croatia
and a host of Croatian Ministries). I mention some of these since
while a clear vision emerged, this was an eclectic affair. That
said, this was very much about education for the future, not an
academic course, but a call to and for future generations.
But the future was not a space in forward time. Dr Constance Piesinger
opened the conference by arguing that the Balkans were once a site
of Goddess culture. This was a peaceful and cooperative local culture.
Eventually, Indo-european tribes destroyed it, beginning the long
period of Patriarchy. However, Adrian Predraga Kezele spoke that
the Goddess can return (from his book, The Return of the Goddess),
and will return. This is the reawakening of spiritual culture in
the Balkan region, moving away from nationalist wars toward a more
cooperative localized culture. But it was through Dr. Ivana Milojevic
that the spiral took the full turn. She argued that since it did
exist once - goddess culture - it can exist again. Our visions of
the future pull us not only in our dreams but in our day to day
realities. We are always living a vision of the future. We should
live one that makes sense to us, politically, economically and culturally.
Workshops by Ross Jackson and Hildur Jackson filled in the details
- how would world trade need to be reorganized, how can the many
sprouting ecovillages be coordinated? Marcus Bussey gave tips to
teachers on how alternative futures generally and neohumanistic
futures particularly can be lived in the tough world of the classroom.
I took a macroview, focusing on long term historical trends and
how they may lead us to a Goddess culture. I asked participants
to design the economic and social institutions that could make their
vision real. As well, I argued, the future, far from being merely
in predictive space, could be seen as a resource, as a facility
that could be used for education, capacity development, strategy,
memetic change, and indeed even microvita change.
Other workshops focused on complementary currencies, necessary
for the required global-local politics (Serbio Lub) and multiple
intelligences (Virginia Dearani). Dr. Shun-Jie Ji from the Tamkang
University Futures Program developed a role-playing workshop on
nuclear and power and future generations in Taiwan, linking sustainable
development to environmental protection. Christian Franceschini
reported on his Yoga in schools program in the public schools in
Italy and how this was transforming health practice and health futures.
What then was the new wave vision that emerged from young people
at the meeting?
1. Return of Goddess culture
2. Spiritual practice as central to the future
3. Linking ecovillages throughout the world
4. Embedding digital technologies in green activities
5. Noiseless cars
6. Global-Local politics
7. Ensuring that Dubrovnik not become swamped with pseudo-culture
but rather it keeps alive its own version of globalized culture
(trading, diplomacy, for example).
8. Community taking care and raising children
9. Leaders with clarity
This new wave was a challenge to four old waves - patriarchy, nationalism,
capitalism and materialism.
Of course, any time a new vision begins to emerge there are issues.
Some were optimistic, believing that an alternative future could
be created. Others, said this was impossible: "look at our
history of war, look at the recent past, and at nationalism still
present in the region." Others pointed out that the politics
of power - patriarchy, economic self-interest, bureaucratized schools,
religious dogma - make it almost impossible for a new future to
emerge.
But as Milojevic argued on the first day, a new vision gives the
possibility of a new actualized future. Without a new vision, the
future would remain bounded by current politics.
And it was this new vision that most conference participants desired.
What was perhaps unique was that traditional dichotomies where not
reinforced. Participants saw technology and nature; women and men;
globalisation and localization; spirituality and the empirical world
as not necessarily in conflict but requiring integration. They did
not want an either/or world, nor did they see themselves as such.
This was best illustrated by ensuring that theatre, music and dance
were all integrated into the program. Indeed, the meeting was not
only for the future but in the future. Even the daily diet was vegetarian,
approximating the peaceful vision desired (non-killing cultures
as Glen Paige writes). Practical workshops as well concluded the
meeting. One focused on becoming a leader and the other on becoming
a new wave teacher.
For me personally, returning to Dubrovnik after 13 years was a
stunning experience. I had gone there in 1990 at the invitation
of Wendy Schultz who had organized a world futures studies federation
course. At that time, all the good and bad hallmarks of a socialist
state were there. Now, this was Europe but without the arrogance.
This was traditional culture nestled in one of the most beautiful
spots in the world. Of course, there had been problems. The war
in the early 1990s had not been kind to the city. However, UNESCO
had helped rebuild the city. Yet, drunk youth still stoned cars
with Serbian license plates. Pensioners commented that everything
in Dubrovnik had been sold to foreigners. Prices kept on going up.
Things were much better before.
It was the realization that Dubrovnik was at a bifurcation point
that was the prime energy of the Conference (along with individual
change agents such as Didi Ananda Rama). Would Dubrovnik continue
its strategy of mass tourism and thus become one big summer traffic
jam? Or could green spaces, recycling, and a new type of tourism
be created? Or should Dubrovnik begin to think about local and global
city solutions, even imagining retuning to pre-nation-state days,
that is, as a city-state? How best should digital technology be
used in governance and in traffic management? These and other questions
were not only explored in the conference but as well later in a
special seminar at the American College of Management. At this seminar,
I presented basic futures concepts (alternative futures, layered
epistemologies, anticipating the future; action learning design
and macrohistory) to over 75 students and faculty and worked with
them to develop alternative futures of the city. They were clear
that if they did nothing then mass tourism and the loss of history
and future would result. They knew they needed to use technology,
green thinking, and foresight to create a different future for their
beloved city.
The students are now working on finding ways to ensure that there
is a yearly new wave event in Dubrovnik, not only exploring alternative
futures, but in making their preferred vision of the future more
real.
While Dubrovnik was the focus, students from other parts of the
former Yugoslavia left with their own projects. Students from Novi
Sad, for example, are working on starting a futures course there.
However, this course intends to be far more focused on methodology,
and less on visions. The failure of the future in Serbia, the despair
of having future after future evaporates, requires an approach that
acknowledges the sorrows of the past and then moves incrementally
to a better future (for example, less nationalistic, financial dignity,
keeping the many successes of socialism while adopting the energy
and openness of Europe). Visions can become nightmares, as Ashis
Nandy reminds us.
Many pathways were opened in Dubrovnik. Some historical, some totally
new, and some a mixture of old and new. I am sure the participants
feel that Gaia was pleased. I went inspired by the hard work and
imagination of the young people of the former Yugoslavia.
|
|
