Social Ecology: a new morality....alternative choices

May 2008

DISCOURSE:
SOCIAL ECOLOGY...... a new
morality, ........... alternative choices

Welcome.
This discourse has been developed by J.Kelvyn Richards, Faculty of Education, Nottingham
Trent University,1979-2004, and Athens Institute for Education and Research 2004-2008, with,
until recently, the help of Dr.Connie Marsh, previously of Nottingham Trent University.
The discourse is an open e-book, revised and reorganised every day. If you find it
interesting, read it regularly, tell your contacts, make weblinks, email me, and comment .






This discourse is based on the
facts of social interdependence
and considers that

Social Freedom is a construct that explains the interdependence of all humans in their
search for survival and identity.

Social Ecology studies the impact of humans on the biosphere, the environment and the
atmosphere of the earth.

Social Epistemology considers the impact of human interaction upon theories of knowledge.
How do we come to know anything?

These constructs have significant implications for our ways of life, and the education of our children.
The discourse recognises that we are living in a world in which violence is rife, and where governments
choose to tell teachers what to teach and pupils what to learn.
Social Ecology will lead us to a new morality, and alternative choices.

This discourse will comprise a series of essays,
Calls for change:
social ecology;
meritocracy and individualism;
social dependence;
gemeinschaft;
social epistemology;
conflict, civil war; peace; that attempt to formulate a new mind set
according to which human society will not be constructed on the basis of the
savage principle of the survival of the fittest; and will not be characterised by islands of wealth
surrounded by oceans of poverty [after Thabo Mbeki].

And then looks at these issues:
What are the implications for education?
What are the implications for capitalism?
What are the implications for daily life?
What are the implications for
development ?

Refer to:
www.psr.keele.ac.uk;
www.insnet.org;
www.earthaction.org;
www.undp.org;
www.thegreenfuse.org;
www.crisisgroup.org;
www.globalissues.org;
www.livegreenordie.com

Calls for change: A Social Ecology

History will show that one of the abiding themes of the last 120 years has been the recurring call for the need to
change. Genetics, Physics and Ecology are disciplines that have led the calls for changes in our thinking.
Genetics and Ecology have established the ways in which organisms and environmental systems are interconnected:
Physics, the relations between solar systems.

Individuals do not exist in isolation, but in relationship and that individual existents are unique (and irreplaceable in the
future) by virtue of the special set of relationships in which only they are (and can remain) embedded. The world is
therefore seen in organismic terms rather than mechanical ones, in terms of interacting processes and fields rather
than isolated things, and socially, in terms of an extended ecological community rather than in terms of essentially
separate, competing individuals. (*Alan Drengson*, Fox, 1995)
[Fox, Towards a Trans personal Ecology, 1995]

A corollary of these connections is that humans are connected, interdependent and interconnected.
The notion of the self as ' independent ' is a delusion.
But of course the delusion is very strong and has led many to blatantly exploit others for their sole benefit, and
aggrandizement. As long as we are subject to the delusion, we will see ourselves as individual and independent, and
unable to take others seriously, other than as means to ends. Furthermore, we can only regard ‘nature’ as part of our
selfish demands and as something to be exploited.

In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from the domination of man by man… But it was not until
organic community relations… dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for
exploitation . This centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing
to its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also pits the mass of
humanity against the natural world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is converted
into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised wantonly."    (/Post Scarcity Anarchism 1971, p.
85)    "The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital."
(/Ibid./, p. 86)

The cultural filter
According to David Pepper each perception or 'myth', or delusion or illusion, functions as a cultural filter. This filter
determines how adherents of different perceptions perceive the environment at the present day and in the past.
The concept of the cultural filter is used by Oelschlager in his book, The Idea of Wilderness: according to which the
perception of wilderness depends on the historical and cultural filters humans used in different periods. He argues that
the modern historical lens obscures the idea of wilderness in ancient times:
'Through the lens of history human experience takes place outside nature'.
Nature is seen as a commodity. Other people are seen as commodities. The calls for change lead us to review our
assumptions, our perceptions, our cultural filters.
It is important that we develop a ‘social ecology’ whereby we learn to exist in cooperation with each other, other species,
and with the environment. We accept our interdependence and interconnectedness and work together for our mutual
benefit by protecting each other and the environment in which we live.

     GENETICS

In June 2007 the United States National Human Genome
Research Institute published the findings of an
exhaustive four year research project, carried out by
35 groups from 80 research organizations across the
world. These findings challenged the traditional view of
the way genes function. To their surprise the
researchers found that the human genome might not
be a tidy collection of independent genes after all,
with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function.
The delusion of the 'selfish gene'. Instead, genes
appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways
not yet fully understood.
Denise Caruso, a director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, in a recent article in the Herald Tribune, July 4 2007, noted that
biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But she believed that in the world of
science, discoveries do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.
This is to be seen as a significant call for change to genetic sciences. At the same time, could we not challenge the
mainstream view of human independence and individuality and accept the interdependence and interaction of humans
within complex networks.
We could reject the economics of the free market, and the rights of some to exploit others. We may reject any notions
that uphold the assertion made by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s, that there is no such thing as society; only
collections of individuals.

Physics : A Quantum world?

The calls for change in the area of physics are perhaps the most radical of all the movements in the academic
disciplines. These changes are far-reaching, questioning the nature of scientific enquiry and indicating that it is time to
‘re-seed’ our concepts of self and others. It is also time to incorporate the implications of quantum physics into our
notions of the physical world. Modern developments in Physics are questioning our present ways of interpreting the
world, and the things around us, suggesting that these are incorrect.

Albert Einstein observed :
A human being is part of the whole, called by us, universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as
something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free
ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature
in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have
obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.

Developments in physics suggest that our delusions and fantasies are not restricted to values. Our perceptions of the
external world are distorted. Whilst recognizing the dramatic achievements of science, particularly the remarkable levels
of accuracy of physical theories, Penrose (1989) has raised questions about the basic assumptions underlying the
Classical approaches to Science. He argues that just as many aspects of our physical reality require the theories of
quantum physics to explain them, this applies also to our understanding of the social world. The work of Richard
Feynmann (1985) winner of the Nobel Prize and a central figure in the changes within Physics links Physics with
Psychology and Philosophy, denying the existence of a reality ‘out there’ or indeed a static/measurable universe
anywhere and considers what Physics and Mathematics can tell us about the nature of the mind and consciousness.
He explains that the essence of Quantum Mechanics involves going against our common sense. The questions raised
by quantum physics touch on the very deepest issues of philosophy, so the phenomenon of consciousness needs this
alternative to classical approaches:

"Perhaps our minds are qualities rooted in some strange and wonderful feature of those physical laws which actually
govern the world we inhabit…We must indeed come to terms with Quantum theory — that most exact and mysterious of
physical theories — if we are to delve deeply into some major questions of philosophy…how does our world behave,
and what constitutes the ‘minds’ that are indeed ‘us'? Yet some day science may give us a more profound
understanding of Nature than quantum theory can provide. It is my personal view that even quantum theory is a stop-
gap, inadequate in certain essentials for providing a complete picture of the world in which we actually live." (Penrose,R.
(1989)p.291)

It seems that the things that we see and feel and manipulate as solid objects are both particles and waves, and can
only be explained, measured, and predicted in terms of such, not as solid, static objects. The inheritors of the quest for
understanding the nature of the Universe have to come to terms with the limitation of order and predictability at the
heart of quantum physics which leads to questioning all notions of solid reality since atoms can appear as particles or
waves simultaneously. They may best be regarded as particles of energy. The effects of measurement on the
phenomenon being measured are clearly impacting on Physics. I cannot pretend that I understand this. But I know that
it has implications for the ways we think of the universe.

Although quantum theories of the Universe are difficult to understand,   these theories are making it possible to think
that the   separation into ‘me and we’, ‘thou/I’; ‘self and others’ is suspect, and that once you conceive of bodies as
particles and waves , then individual humans should be viewed as a continuum in which ‘the one’ is an aspect of ‘the
many’. It is not impossible to think in terms of genes and DNA: that each individual is a product of all unions since the
first. The ‘Quantum message’ is that it is not possible to identify ‘out there’ and ‘in here’, only states of fluidity and
merging. This message indicates that any certainty of the independent, autonomous self; of the solid, independent
object may be an illusion.

These concerns have long been central to Social Sciences. It seems that this same issue is now central to Physics
when the stability of mathematics points out the instability of the physical world. Perspectives of this type, change the
whole focus of scientific enquiry, and present a re-definition of science itself. The separation of traditional subject
boundaries melt in the quantum world which has so far defied human understanding, but presents fascinating
possibilities for re-thinking and re-feeling our pursuit of knowledge.

Ecology
Of the environment, and societies.

Another academic discipline in which the
demands for change have been developing is
that of Ecology. Peace activists,Conservationists
and Environmentalists have long been asserting
that if we continue to seek our individual
gratification by consuming all the products and
all the global resources, then there will be no
sustainable future for our children. Yet this has
been largely ignored.

The Deep Ecology of Arne Naess is concerned with the Metaphysics of Nature, and of the relation of the Self to
Nature. It sets up ecology as a model for the basic metaphysical structure of the world, seeing the identities of all
things- whether at the level of elementary particles, organisms, or galaxies- as logically interconnected: all things are
constituted by their relations with other things ..Applying this principle of interconnectedness to the human case, it
becomes apparent that the individual denoted by ‘I’ is not constituted merely by a body or a personal ego or
consciousness. I am, of course, partially constituted by these immediate physical and mental structures,
but I am also constituted by my ecological relations with the elements of my environment- relations in the image of which
the structures of my body and consciousness are built. I am a holistic element of my native ecosystem, and of any wider
wholes under which that ecosystem is subsumed ..
From the point of view of deep ecology, what is wrong with our culture is that it offers us an inaccurate conception of the
self. It depicts the personal self as existing in competition with and in opposition to nature .We fail to realise that if we
destroy our environment, we are destroying what is in fact our larger self. (*Freya Matthew*) (Fox, 1995)

The opening address of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in the summer of 2002 by
Thebo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, eloquently summarized the nature of the changes needed if we are to
achieve sustainability. He stated that

"a global human society….characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty is unsustainable. …for
the first time in human history, society has the capacity, the knowledge and the resources to eradicate poverty" (http:
//www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)

He called for a ‘seed’ change in our attitudes.
"We do not accept that human society should be constructed on the basis of the savage principle of the survival of the
fittest." (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)

He is arguing for the alteration of our cultural mindsets: and our cultural filters; to alter the seeds of our thinking,
attitudes, and beliefs. This is because he is facing, along with his peoples, a future that will involve significant change :
the most significant of which will be the total abolition of apartheid in all its forms, and the establishment of a free
society, in which all are free, not simply the political elites.
This is the latest in a long history of challenges to the misuse of human rights; of the earth’s resources, and the
poverty, famine and gross inequalities which have been at the center of our global society.

It is clear now that such calls for change are growing in urgency and that they are coming from a wider range of
different sources. Initially it was concerns about the Environment which generated debate about the impact of our use
of nuclear power, then fossil fuels, and the increase in deforestation and consequent global warming. Increasing
amounts of data have been collected showing clearly the consequences of our continuing to ignore the depletion of our
natural resources — yet we continue to live in unsustainable ways.

"What we do about Ecology depends on our ideas about the Man-nature relationship…. More science and more
technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis…We must rethink and re-feel our destiny…. We
deserve our increasing pollution because according to our structure of values, so many other things have priority over
achieving a viable ecology." (White ,L.(1967)p.28)

Adopting a moral and philosophical approach to ecological issues requires consideration of the ethical basis of our
values. Toulmin, (1982) argued that concern with developing understanding of the natural world involves more than
learning how to make better use of the resources it provides. It also requires us to make sense of our patterns of
relationships and to understand how these relationships fit into the pattern of the whole Universe.
However, developing this sense of ‘proper’ relations may be a more difficult enterprise than it at first appears. Even our
patterns of communication may affect our ability to understand our place in the world, indeed, even the kind of
questions it is possible to ask may be limited by the language available to us. Toulmin noted the way in which so many
attempts to reflect on the world have been concerned with making sense of the universe as a whole, even though this is
a particularly difficult task. Calls for an holistic view and the need to consider our world view or cosmology have been a
common feature within the Ecological literature. Robotham (1993) argues that the dominance of technocratic rationality
masks the political context of ecological issues. Mead (1970) points out that the world we have created within our minds
presents particular difficulties, and she identifies the self-destructive tendencies inherent in our attitudes and
approaches towards the social and natural world. These attitudes lead to a series of traps, which hinder us from
developing more viable cosmologies.

It is clear that there is a need to re-think our attitudes towards our global environment. But we must also alter our ideas
about profit and poverty. Anthony Browne in an article in the New Statesman Aug 2002 states that:

"The World Summit on Sustainable Development…is the culmination of a new theory sweeping charities, national
governments, the UN., and at least the press releases of the World Bank: fighting poverty and saving the environment
are in fact the same battle… the summit is about how we can reduce poverty and save nature at the same time. This
theory is not just that it is desirable to do both at the same time…but rather that you have to do both at the same time,
that you can’t do one without the other. It turns the old theory of trade-offs between development and the environment
on its head; they are now part of the same bargain."

The common thread in all the calls for change and warnings of impending doom is the need for common action.

Joanna Macy argued : I consider that this shift [to an emphasis on our capacity to identify with the larger collective of all
beings ] is essential to our survival at this point in history precisely because it can serve in lieu of morality and because
moralising is ineffective. Sermons seldom hinder us from pursuing our self-interest, so we need to be a little more
enlightened about what our self-interest is. It would not occur to me,for example, to exhort you to refrain from cutting off
your leg. That would’t occur to me or to you, because your leg is part of you. Well,so are the trees in the Amazon
Basin; they are our external lungs. We are just beginning to wake up to that. We are gradually discovering that
we are our world. [Joanna Macy, eco philosopher, Berkeley,USA]

Many writers have argued that in order to make an impact on world pollution, all governments will have to work
together. It is only a token for individual governments to take certain actions. If the world is to survive as an 'eco system'
and be sustainable, it is clear that we will all have to act together. Every individual and every government will have to
agree to take specified actions designed to reduce pollution and reduce global warming. The argument is that whether
we like it or not, we only have a sustainable future by acting together and in the interests of our neighbours. For
example, the hole in the ozone layer does not just effect Antarctica, it impacts upon the meteorological systems of the
earth.This situation may be seen as another version of 'chaos theory' whereby the wings of the butterfly across the
world in the Pacific can lead to a hurricane in the Caribbean.
This is yet another reason for Mbeki’s call for leaders of the industrialized world to abandon the principle of the ‘survival
of the fittest’. If we move away from trying to build a ‘meritocracy’ which gives all the social goods of society to the most
able, those judged to be the ‘fittest’; and think instead about the equitable distribution of goods, then we have to
challenge the notion of the survival of the fittest and replace this idea with an alternative vision about human
relationships; as a statement about the ways in which we are all interdependent.    For example, it is no good the USA
refusing to control its industrial emissions on the grounds that such things are part of national politics to the exclusion
of international interest !

What has to be questioned is the definition of ‘the fittest’. In a capitalist global society, the fittest have always been
defined as those most able to make as much profit from others as possible. In a sustainable global society we have to
share with each other. The 'winner 'does not take all, but shares it with the 'losers'. ‘Development’, ‘Conservation’ and
‘Environmentalism’ cannot mean that we all seek the ways of living of the richest, but that we all share the resources of
the globe so that we all achieve a satisfactory sustainable standard of life.
It means ‘redistribution’. It means that the ‘rich’ will have to give back much of their riches to the poorer citizens so that
we can all live sustainable lives. For example, the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and the Duke of Westminster,
Abramovitch and the other Russian oligarchs, as well as the House of Windsor,and the other Royal Houses, will have
to accept the need to distribute their billions of dollars for the benefit of whole communities who are living in abject
poverty.

The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about the hunger of others; that in order to
secure the greatest happiness of all we must act in consideration of all others. The graphic images of a group of
cosseted elite attending the World Summit within a stone’s throw of the abject poverty of large groups of Black South
Africans bear witness to the increasingly large divide between those who have access to resources and those that do
not.

The warnings are all around us — from scientists, activists, and increasingly from our personal experiences of climate
change with flooding, droughts , and other natural disasters. Economic instability is being experienced even among the
relatively affluent citizens of the developed world, job insecurity, the migration of corporate capital, downsizing and
unemployment are common features of our day-to day experience. The current credit crisis, 2008,triggered by the sub-
prime mortgage deals in the USA, emphasise the facts of our interdependence and interconnectedness. Families in
Ohio defaulting on their loans set the world financial systems into free fall ! In many parts of the world famine and
destitution are prevalent. Despite such evidence of the need for a radical re-thinking of our global community, few
contemplate changes in their lifestyle.
A Social Ecology means that in order to protect the environment we must alter our lifestyles, our
economics, our notions of self.

Recently in 2006 the Central planning committees in China have challenged the expansion of individualism and
capitalism within their systems, and called for the reassertion of the needs of communities, and the redistribution of
resources for the benefit of all, rather than the wealth of the few. They have become aware that while some have
become very wealthy since the liberalization of China’s economy, the vast majority of their peoples remain in abject
poverty and ignorance. They may have a different political agenda to other governments, but they have identified the
critical dilemma of the capitalist economics.

The evidence that this situation is unsustainable has also been demonstrated by the violent reactions of disadvantaged
groups all over the world. The riots in Seattle and other cities accompanying the World Trade Organisation Summits,
the escalating crime rates in most large western cities which makes prisoners of many in their own homes, and the
spread of violence around the globe are testimony to the effects of inequality on the disadvantaged. We forget at our
cost the revolutions of the French, the Romanians, the Russians, the Americans, the South Africans, the Chinese; and
that economic elites are easily swept away, along with their fortunes.

The combining of developmental issues and relief of poverty may be one small step towards recognition of our
interrelationships within our global society. It is naïve, however, to assume that just by such a change the challenges
can be overcome.

We have an enormous capacity for self-delusion and compartmentalized thinking. The development of Deep Ecology
and ecosophy represents one attempt to overcome these delusions and compartmentalism as Naess (1990 ) states:

"Ecology is a limited science which makes use of scientific methods. Philosophy is the most general forum of debate on
fundamentals…By an ecosophy I mean a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy is a kind of
sophia, wisdom, is openly normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and
hypotheses concerning the state of affairs of our universe."(Naess,A.(1990)p.155)

Thus, within Deep Ecology there is a broadening of the sphere of concern of Ecology, outlining a structure of values,
which are seen, as radically different from those dominant in present Society. The central feature of difference with
other types of Ecology is the merging of issues, which have previously been seen as philosophical, yet including also a
requirement to action in order to effect a change in behaviour. Just as the imperative to change our consumption
patterns goes largely ignored, despite the increasing impact of environmental changes in the form of earthquakes,
tsunamis, storms and hurricanes, so calls for change in education are also being rejected.
To understand this rejection we need to think about the values and beliefs, the cosmology which is being rejected.
Roszak (1973) argues that:

"What is important in the examination of a people’s mindscape is not what they articulately know or say they believe….
What matters is something deeper; the feel of the world around us, the sense of reality; the taste that spontaneously
discriminates between knowledge and fantasy."(Roszak,T.(1973)p.403-4)

A notion supported by Pepper (1989) who states that:

"It is of prime importance for us to study, as well as the ‘real’ and tangible physical environment, how different groups
and individuals perceive that environment and the nature of the ecologically, socially and culturally based
presuppositions which colour this perception, or as some express it, the cultural filter.."(Pepper,D.(1989)p.6)

If we are to alter the ways in which people behave, we are going to have to alter the ways in which they conceive their
culture and traditions, and their relationships with all others, not just their family. This means that we have to ‘ to think
local as well as global’. If your local communities think nothing of dumping any item by the roadside; are happy about
setting up shopping malls in nature reserves; do not worry about pollution from cars and insist on buying large gas
guzzling vehicles; do not allow petrol taxes because they want cheap fuel; are not concerned about oil exploration in the
seas and the forests, if it means cheaper fossil fuels; then the global debate about conservation is of no consequence
and we shall all have to take the consequences: the destruction of the human race by hunger, disease, catastrophe.

The combination of individualism, existentialism, post modernism, and capitalism has led to an epistemology of
independence and selfishness. This has led to the development of cultural filters that ignore the consequences of
selfish behaviour.

Political changes do not seem to have taken these academic developments into account. The development of the
‘Third Way’ in the UK represented the demise of socialist ideals and the promotion of capitalism as the only option. The
impact of this, however, has been to lower taxes for the very rich and to increase tax burdens on the poor. The
principles of the free market and the policies of monetarism, as promoted by Milton Friedman, argued that wealth does
not have to be actively redistributed as it will essentially redistribute itself. Prosperity will gradually trickle down from the
spending of the rich to the poor. Monetarism has been a global phenomenon. But at the turn of the 21st Century
increasing numbers of people across the world are beginning to realize that ‘Capitalism’ represents a call for the rich to
exploit the poor so as to become richer. It is to do with the protection of individual entrepreneurs and their corporations
to allow them to become richer than many countries. So we are confronted by the fact that one of the richest
corporations in the world is Microsoft; and the individual, Bill Gates has more wealth than many developing countries.

A recent report by the United Nations into poverty across the world reported that despite the economic growth globally
0.01% of the world’s population still controls 98% of the wealth and the other 99.99% of the population live in relative
poverty, many on less than $1 a day,and even more on less than $10 a day. Many without drinkable water; without
sanitation. Many malnourished. This situation is clearly unsustainable.

A measure of the changes in the distribution of wealth is the fact that the Forbes 500 list of the richest people in the
world now has to talk about multi-billionaires, and recently trillionaires, and no longer bothers to identify millionaires.
The United Nations is leading the call for rethinking our political parameters and polarities.
Concern for the Environment, conservation, development, and ecology are not only about ‘nature’, they are calling for
social changes….
A social ecology, according to which we realize that we are interdependent and connected to each other.

MERITOCRACY AND INDIVIDUALISM
VICES NOT VIRTUES

In the Guardian, June 2001, Michael Young commented: “I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise
of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation,especially in the United States, and most
recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair,” Prime Minister of UK, until June 2007.

“The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might
happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy. Much that was predicted has
already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word
without realising the dangers of what he is advocating. Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical
analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the
1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.”

As indicated by Michael Young, one has to conclude that in modern capitalist societies two key assumptions are [1] the
value of meritocracy and individualism, which define [2] education as selection, and curriculum as prescription.

Meritocracy
The concept of ‘meritocracy’ espouses that the role of education is to select the most able, ‘the golden people’, and
give them the best education. These ideas are so entrenched today, that it is difficult to remember that Michael Young
wrote his book, The Rise of Meritocracy, in 1958 as a satire, warning us of the evils of meritocracy.
But these ideas can be traced back to Platonic notions of dividing people into ‘gold’, ‘silver’ and ‘bronze’ individuals in
which the gold knew the truth and were entitled to lead and organize the silver and bronze people. This has justified the
identification of elites for grooming to lead society. In the past, gold people were born into that position, but in modern
times, testing and certification have been used to identify that group.

State Education systems ostensibly provide opportunity for all but the real purpose is to select this elite. Mechanisms,
such as the 11+, have been used for this selection, to grade and separate the able from
the rest and to provide an exclusive education for them. For this selection to happen it is necessary to identify
individual differences and to legitimize separate educational provisions. This has led to competition for selection, the
separation of communities and inequality. Michael Young asserted that education provision can be easily used to
engineer a ‘meritocracy’, providing the seal of approval on the few, and disapproval on the many. Meritocracy has
nothing to do with equality of opportunity, only with the provision of the best education for the ‘most able’, and
justification for their superiority in society. We must not forget that private education systems have been operated for a
long time by ‘the privileged’ for the benefit of their own children, ensuring that they are kept separate from the
‘underprivileged’.
Systems of meritocracy encourage us to compete with each other through exams, declaring those with the highest
marks as superior and more worthy than all others, and classifying failure as a personal individual failure. Meritocracy
supports class divisions in any society.
Paolo Freire alerted us that
‘The elite naturally believe that they are better and anything else is naturally inferior. We have a strong tendency to
affirm that what is different from us is inferior. We start from the belief that our way of being is not only good but better
than that of others who are different from us. This is intolerance. It is the irresistible preference to reject differences.
The dominant class, then, because it has the power to distinguish itself from the dominated class, first, rejects the
differences between them but, second, does not pretend to be equal   to those who are different; third, it does not
intend that those who are different shall be equal. What it wants is to maintain the differences and keep its distance
and to recognize and emphasize in practice the inferiority of those who are dominated.’

Bourdieu (1998) describes the processes whereby education selects, differentiates, and legitimates that selection and
differentiation. He argues that educational institutions whilst declaring themselves as providing educational
opportunities for all are actually closed and discriminatory. It is obvious, as part of the ideology of meritocracy, that
state and private schools are run so as to select the ‘best’ and make sure that they become part of the civil service,
entrepreneurs and the professions in the first place; and tradesmen and traders in the second place; and then the
workers. They act as agents of selection and discrimination.
Schools are organized in ways that even where ‘liberation’ is the goal, elitism is the result: the liberation that is on offer
is that of providing a wider range of learners with the opportunities to take the exams, to enter into the meritocracy.
The result of this selection and discrimination is the classification of large numbers of learners as failures who do not
see themselves as successful learners. In the 21st century all economies need workers who are able to understand
and apply technology as lifelong learners in a complex and continuously changing world. For economic and social
success, educational institutions must change their ways in relation to knowledge, learning, teaching, grading, and
pedagogy to develop the flexible, creative and motivated workforce needed to survive. Education systems should be
opening up to sponsor as many skilled workers as possible. But this is not what is happening. Across the world more
and more governments are developing elitist systems obsessed with the attainment of the highest academic standards.
Funding Agencies prefer to operate elitist rather than open systems.
These tensions are currently being worked out in the English education service. Politicians, and employers are
decrying the increasing numbers of students passing exams, and arguing that standards are falling. However, many
teachers and assessment authorities are at pains to maximize the students’ chances and opportunities to do as well as
possible in examinations, by developing modules, and module assessment by continuous assessment, rather than
timed exams.

Bourdieu (1998) explains this process in terms of ‘The Left Hand and the Right Hand of the State’:

“ the set of agents of the so-called spending ministries which are the trace, within the state, of the social struggles of
the past….I think that the left hand of the state has the sense that the right hand no longer knows, or worse, no longer
really wants to know what the left hand does. In any case it does not want to pay for it. …the state has withdrawn…from
a number of sectors of social life for which it was previously responsible; social housing, public service broadcasting,
schools, hospitals, etc., which is all the more stupefying and scandalous, in some of these areas at least, because it
was done by a Socialist government, which might at least be expected to be the guarantor of public service as an open
service available to all, without distinction.”(p.2)

This unequal system is maintained through several different mechanisms, for example, what Bourdieu refers to as
‘Habitus’ :

“Habitus refers to the internalization of structures during the process of socialization. Habitus is expressed in culture by
translating structures of oppression into symbolic representations that mask their social origin; ( for instance when one
blames the destitute for their poverty). These oppressive relationships in symbolic form develop perceptions that nature
and biology are responsible for unequal power relations instead of social practice”
( http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~curth/papers/bourdieu.html]

Educational Institutions claim to be widening access but exclude many from entry. Within a meritocracy, the providers,
and the successful students, agree with the special provisions, because it ensures their futures to the exclusion of
others.
Within educational institutions, the ‘habitus’ includes messages of elitism in that students are selected to gain access to
skills and certification, which excludes the many who will then be denied such opportunities. Individual achievement is
celebrated and the system of grading and differentiation is legitimated. These messages are an expression of the
following key assumptions:

Society is a hierarchy of the leaders and the led.

Inequality is inevitable.

Inequality is right.

Those who are able deserve all the goods of society.

Those who are clever should lead communities.

Those who lead deserve the goods of society.

The belief that those who are able, and good, and deserve the goods of society, acts as a justification for the selection
of the ‘chosen’; for the rich to get richer and those riches to be seen as evidence of their goodness, rather than
evidence of the extent of their exploitation of others. Such beliefs develop into an acceptance of a ‘natural order’ in
which some are chosen to flourish. Those who flourish are confirming their cleverness and skill, which inevitably makes
them the best leaders and decision-makers, which in turn provides them with the opportunity to continue the cycle of
exploitation and acquisition. This state of affairs describes the mindset, or the cultural filter, embodied in meritocracy,
and elitism……whether capitalist or socialist.
Building a society upon such a cycle impacts upon all aspects of that society. Relationships between individuals
become depersonalized so that other learners are seen as ‘enemies’ with whom you are in competition and conflict as
each strive for their own survival. Relationships with the environment also become distorted as individuals are
separated from the natural world, and they inevitably lose sight of their own humanity as profit dominates thinking and
decision-making.
The metaphor of “the rat race” summarizes the developments we are describing – people feel themselves to be out of
control, competing with others, running over others, ‘eating’ them if they get in the way.
The ethics of meritocracy and individualism have given all the ‘goods’ of society to the few, and left the majority in
poverty and ignorance. The spread of corporate globalization has meant the dominance of many national economies
by few capitalist entrepreneurs and their companies such as General Motors, Ford, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, IBM,
Caterpillar, Boeing, Esso, BP, Texaco, along with many others from Russia, China, and Japan, and Capitalism has
created wealth for some but left the poor even poorer..…..it is just as well that ‘they will inherit the kingdom of god’ for
their lives will be of abject poverty and wretchedness. All of this is legitimized by the following assumptions:

Profit is made by discovery, exploitation, innovation, manufacture, trade, exchange.

Profit is good.
Those who make profit are good.

Profit is the glory of ‘God’.

Those who make profit should give to the worship of ‘God.’

They are the chosen of ‘God.’

‘God’ is our father.

We must obey him in all things.

We must not question his rule

He will look after us in heaven

The disasters of today are visited on us as punishment for our sins

Inequality is inevitable.

Inequality is right.

Assumptions about ‘Gods’, which are accepted by many communities, allow humans to see themselves as special; allow
those who make profit, and lead others, to be seen as to be blessed by ‘god’; as ‘not to blame’ for all the inequality and
injustices in the world, for the misuse of the environment; to regard disasters as punishments by ‘Gods’; and to look
forward to a better life in ‘heaven’. Many people think that they have ‘souls’, and think that the body is not important;
their souls will go to heaven, so it is not necessary to do anything about the earth. What is more, such people will suffer
the insufferable on earth in the belief that they will enter the kingdom of heaven. If such beliefs were not so widespread,
one could be led to regard the whole thing as a clever conspiracy designed to let ‘might be right’ and for the rich to get
richer by exploiting the lesser, the poor. Different Religious organisations must be seen as the right hand of ‘the
privileged’.
These beliefs can be used to allow any individual to defend all those actions that aggrandize the self to the sacrifice of
others and result in the constant exploitation of manufacturing, until we have reached the point where our activities
have led to climate change and global warming, and the transformation of ecology and our environment. But the
religious mind set persuades us that we are not responsible, for we are in the hands of god and destined for another
and better life in heaven. This discussion highlights the tensions between individuals and groups in that the selection
mechanisms systematically separate particular individuals to form elite groups, but in doing so generates a delusion of
individualism which enables individuals to persuade themselves that they are ‘gold’ as a result of their own efforts,
independent of their ‘habitus’, and the blessed of god. The delusion of god supports the delusion of individualism.

individualism
The concept of individualism and individual freedom, has become the basis upon which western societies have built
their economic prosperity. Such a belief was given significant impetus when Margaret Thatcher declared that ‘there is
no such thing as society’!

Prof. Amitai Etzioni has asserted that libertarians actually think that
"individual agents are fully formed and their value preferences are in place prior to and outside of any society." They
"ignore robust social scientific evidence about the ill effects of isolation," and, yet more shocking, they "actively oppose
the notion of 'shared values' or the idea of 'the common good.'" (American Sociological Review,_ February 1996).

Washington Post columnist,E. J. Dionne Jr. argued in his book ‘Why Americans Hate Politics’ that
"the growing popularity of the libertarian cause suggested that many Americans had even given up on the possibility of
a 'common good,'’ In a recent essay in the Washington Post Magazine, he wrote that "the libertarian emphasis on the
freewheeling individual seems to assume that individuals come into the world as fully formed adults who should be held
responsible for their actions from the moment of birth."

The late Russell Kirk, in a vitriolic article titled "Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries," claimed that
"the perennial libertarian, like Satan, can bear no authority, temporal or spiritual" and that "the libertarian does not
venerate ancient beliefs and customs, or the natural world, or his
country, or the immortal spark in his fellow men." Cato Policy Report, Tom Palmer 1996.

*Individualism* is a term used to describe a moral ,political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and
the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires.
They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society , the state , or any other group
or institution , which stress that communal, group, societal, racial, or national goals should take priority over individual
goals. Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition , religion , or any other form of external moral standard
should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions. Some argue that individuals are not duty-bound to any socially-
imposed morality and that individuals should be free to choose to be selfish (or to choose any other lifestyle) if they so
desire. Others still, such as Ayn Rand , argue against "moral relativism" and claim selfishness to be a virtue. [source:
Wikipedia 2007]
Such notions can and do lead to unfairness, injustice and inequality when the rights of the powerful take precedence
over others: when might is right! In the USA it is only now that inequality has become a political issue. Records show
that the top 1% of the population has increased their wealth many fold in the last ten years. Whereas the number of
people below the poverty line has continued to grow. Here, as elsewhere the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer
in their search for individual expression and freedom. The assertion by Friedman of the ‘trickle down effect’ has been
shown to be a delusion, a fantasy.
For example, the annual reporting season for companies and corporations is in full swing each spring across the globe.
While many forecasters continue to worry about the onset of depression or recession, an amazing feature of the
reports is the enormous amounts of money that executives are being paid by boards of governors, or simply paying
themselves. In the USA in April 2007 it was reported that such individuals as T.Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn, George
Soros, Kenneth Griffin, Edward Lampert, Loyd Blankfein, James Simon, all took home over 50 million dollars for the
year, and some more than 1.5 billion dollars. One must assume that this is done on the grounds that ‘I am free to do as
I please!’ I have taken risks with other peoples money! I am entitled to the rewards and
bonuses.

At the same time, the United Nations reported that 0.01 percent of the world’s population owned 98% of the wealth. This
means that 99.99 owned only 2% of that gross wealth. The wonder of a global capitalist system is that poverty is
the norm. The belief that more and more are getting richer and richer pales into insignificance beside the growth in the
numbers of the poor!
Capitalism, that promotes the enterprise of individuals, is in a dilemma. How can any political and economic system that
supports the poverty of the vast majority, and the prosperity of the few, expect to continue? Surely a point will be
reached whereby the majority will overthrow the ‘rich’ and claim their riches! Capitalism can only be justified if there is
a ‘trickle down’ effect and a sharing of the profits.
There could be a ‘trickle down’ effect if the rich invested their personal fortunes in other enterprises, and created jobs
for many others; or financed charitable operations designed to allow the poor to work and generate income. One could
argue that the likes of George Soros and James Simon do return significant amounts of money to others and set up
new initiatives. And it is reported that Bill Gates of Microsoft has recently been in China offering a cheap version of
Windows XP. And the Gates Foundation is offering funds to help farmers in various parts of Africa. On the other hand,
it does not seem to have occurred to him to follow the lead of Linux, and make his operating system available free of
charge to all.
The obsession with the rights of the individual to exploit others and enrich themselves has been supported by
philosophy. The critical discourses of Descartes, leading, in later centuries, to the philosophies and epistemologies of
self -ishness as expressed in rationalism, individualism, existentialism, and post-modernism have not only allowed ‘me’
to regard ‘myself’ as ‘certain’, and at the center of the universe, but also to see ‘hell as other people’, and possibly to
consider ‘others’ as phantasms or tricks played by Gods, or even by my imagination. In societies in which there are
‘elites’, it is not surprising that ‘I’ can feel free to pursue my own interests without any regard for others. Ideals of
individual freedom and freedom of choice and free will are pursued by individuals for their own aggrandizement.
Philosophical discussions are based on the need to demarcate the boundaries between individuals, to ensure that one
person’s freedom is not interfered with by that of another person.
We are living under the delusion of independence, accepting the epistemology of individualism, and the belief that ‘I’
am the centre of the universe. This ideology is developed within families many of whom see their role as encouraging
the growing independence of their offspring: within schools, where individual effort is rewarded, but where cooperation
with others is classified as cheating or plagiarism; and in the workplace where workers are often separated from each
other and social interaction is restricted so as to avoid team work or ‘skiving’. In some industries, the growing
recognition of the value of teamwork is introducing some fundamental challenges to this ideology of individualism. Such
an individualized focus masks the reality of our interdependence and effectively prevents us from developing a
freedom, which recognizes, and is based, on our interdependence: a Social Freedom.
This could be seen as the delusion of independence, in which we feel ourselves to be separate individuals able to
survive alone. The reality is that we are never alone and are interdependent throughout our lifetime.
This delusion of individualism, and the belief in meritocracy in education, leads to a focus on individual achievements,
the identification of the elites, and their separation from the others; while at the same time talking about equal
educational opportunity for all. The present establishment of ‘Academies of Excellence’ and the perpetual demand for
the return of Grammar Schools are manifestations of this ideology.
It would be foolish to conclude that there are no ‘individuals’. I have a strong sense of being an individual: looking at
the world through my eyes; and devising my ideas within my mind and communicating with others, and being
influenced by others. I wish to argue that individual people exist in relation to others; are interdependent and
interconnected with all others. To believe that I can exist, independent of others is a delusion. I exist as part of a
network of others. The delusion of the independent individual is a vice not a virtue!

ALONE IN A CROWD?
A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL DEPENDENCE
1945

The start of a new era.
The second world war in Europe almost ended.
In England there was a new Labour government, promising a new deal, based on the principles of welfare provision
established in the Beveridge Report.
Aneurin Bevan was pushing through the legislation for the National Health Service, and schemes of National Insurance,
taking over control of the municipal and voluntary hospitals, and all doctors, so as to provide free medical care for all at
the point of need.
The 1944 Education Act was already providing for the first time opportunities of secondary education for all boys and
girls.
For many, such as those returning home from battle, life would never be the same.
For many children, who had been born during the war, their lives were blighted by disease……………diptheria, polio,
rheumatic fever ,scarlet fever, pneumonia, bronchitis.

I have vague memory images of watching the 'dog fights' in the air between Spitfires, Hurricanes, and Messerschmits ;
and sitting under tables to avoid the doodlebugs as they flew in noisily and then, silent, before hitting the ground and
exploding; playing in a road in Walton on Thames and drinking water out of
the gutter like the dogs, cats, and birds.
At the age of 4, a childhood of illness and hospitals had just started. My father had kept a diary of the time. He
recorded that his children, Philip, Ann, and John were ill constantly during the year, with sore throats, sickness, rashes,
spots, worms. But it was only John who became so ill that he had to be taken to hospital.
For this boy, 1945, through to 1951, was spent in and out of hospitals. First, Walton Municipal; later, over the years,
Chertsey, St.Peters; Woking; Windsor; Westminster; Kingston, Lancing. A cold…a sore throat…swollen
glands…scarlet fever….rheumatic fever, mitral stenosis, heart disease.
Today, rheumatic fever is a minor disease in Europe. So rare, that many doctors do not know the symptoms nor the
treatment. In fact, I had a recurrence of the fever when I was 17 in 1958, and remember telling the doctor what the
problem was, as he admitted that he had no idea. It took the hospital 3 weeks to confirm the diagnosis, by which time I
was totally rheumatic and unable to move any joints. This time around I was saved by a miracle drug, Cortisone.
I ,as an individual, had been supported by this web of medical researchers and doctors and nurses, while under the
delusion that I was independent and free. Why was I not able to see and understand how completely dependent I was ?
Unable to survive without specialist help ?
In 1945 rheumatic fever was a child killer. The standard treatment was aspirin, in its time another miracle drug, and bed
rest.
Of course, I am writing this with the benefit of hindsight, and family report, for I do not remember any of it.
There were the sore throat, the swollen joints, and the pains. Followed by rheumatic paralysis. On reflection, bed rest
was inevitable, as the patient was unable to move anyway.
However, when I was feeling good, it was always irritating to be told to stay in bed. Everybody nagged me to keep warm.
Not to run about. Not to go out.
As always the best thing about being ill is that you do not have to go to school. On the other hand, I had to stay at
home with my mother and Granny Let . Both were bossy and strident, telling me to stay in bed; don’t go out in the
garden; put on a coat; eat your dinner; sit down; get up, be quiet.
My mother was the daughter of a Welsh miner. He had been gassed in the First World War and lived as an invalid on
the dole. During the 40’s she gave birth to five children: two of whom died of diptheria, and one was in hospital all the
time with rheumatic fever. She was not educated and had been brought up to be a maid. Her liaisons on the Bwlch [the
local mountain] and marriage to Jim, the star of the local Grammar school, who got a job as a design engineer with
Vickers Armstrong in Weybridge in England, was a real coup. But like many other people neither she nor her mother
could understand the complexity of the disease, nor my need for love and comfort. My mother had never had any time
for, what she regarded as, sentimental displays of emotion or love or grief. I cannot remember any time when she would
give us a hug. Indeed with all these other children around, there was very little time or energy to satisfy anyone.

They saw that they were sacrificing a lot to keep this ungrateful boy alive and under control. Travelling miles from one
hospital to another. Making special arrangements when he was home. When I was at home, I grew to hate their
interventions, as they represented my inability to do anything on my own. I would attack them with hammers and forks.
Granny Let found me so uncontrollable that she refused to look after me anymore. I cannot remember what my brother
and sister thought about all this. To be honest, I cannot remember any of my family during these years, 1945 to 1951. I
report these facts and events as they were reported to me by members of my family.
[This is an example of an individual being a part of a social matrix, being supported by members of his family,
and the nurses and doctors in the hospitals. But he was subject to the delusion of independence, unaware of
the extent of his dependence. If he was aware, he resented and rejected that dependency, fighting against it all
the time.]
When I was ill I was not aware of anything. For people who have never been seriously ill, they regard illness as a
torture. For those who have been seriously ill, ‘illness’ is a state of being. You live your illness. For some one who is
seriously ill, [that is, likely to die soon,] being alive is being ill .When it all gets too bad, you want it to stop; you want to
die. You cease to be aware of anyone else. You focus on your symptoms as they change each day. You retreat into a
state of illness. You concentrate on your state of ‘body’. In fact, other people are a nuisance, forcing you to come out of
your reverie, or to do things that either hurt or were unpleasant. What is unusual, is to be well!
At 5 years old , there were sore throats, swollen joints, and pains. And then, a swollen mitral valve, and a swelling
heart. It is interesting to note that I did not know about these complications until much later. And even then it was
referred to as ‘having a bad heart’. At one point it was reported that the heart had filled the chest cavity, and was four
times normal size. It slurped and whistled and gurgled. The mitral valve had become damaged, rendering blood
circulation around the body irregular and haphazard. Death was round the corner.
Such a serious illness was serious living, leading to a predicted death. A lot of time was spent asleep: bed rest.
Visiting times were always an interesting event. For the visitors, it was a time to look and pity this ‘bag of bones’. For
me, it was always important to have visitors, but only for five minutes. And indeed, five minutes was probably long
enough for the visitors. But having travelled for hours to get to the hospital, you had to stay as long as possible. At this
time, in the National Health Service there were no single rooms. The ill were housed in large wards, 50–60 beds in the
ward. Visiting time was a social event. For the ill, there was nothing worse than having no visitors. It made you the most
pathetic amongst the other pathetics. But the visitors were always people that you were’ forgetting’, or had forgotten, or
did not know. After five minutes of chat, I would want to go to sleep or go and do something else. That is, unless there
were presents such as chocolates, fruits, books, comics, puzzles. Of course, as the joke has it, during a two hour
visiting time, all of the chocolates and fruit would have been eaten by the visitors. For what else is there to do. There
can be no conversation as nothing has happened. My parents could not talk to me about life at home as I had no point
of reference, other than hospital.
Over a period of six years of life in hospital, I regarded my ‘parents’ as those people who came bearing gifts. One can
see that visiting time provided lots of excuses for tantrums or tears. With death around the corner for a little boy who
only wanted to get on with the business of living his illness, there were always lots of adults in attendance, interfering
with him, talking about him as if he was not there.
[We are talking about someone who was not alone, but who was always lonely. He was concerned with his own
inner world, placed in a complex world of carers, nurses, doctors, surgeons, specialists. They were all equally
concerned about his inner world, his state of body. While John was living from minute to minute, he could not
possibly realize that all these others were collectively trying to formulate a future for him.]
One day I was woken up by the ward sister, and doctor, and given some sugar and a beaker of ‘medicine’. The reason
for the sugar soon became clear. The medicine was awful. It was bitter. The sugar helped the medicine go down. The
medicine had to be taken regularly several times everyday. I had been introduced to penicillin.

[Without knowing anything about this, John had become part of an international network working for the
introduction and development of one of the most significant drugs of recent time. He was about to be released
from his cycle of illness by the product of researches across the world.]

Sir Alexander Fleming, a Scotsman, had first discovered penicillin in 1928, in a petri dish that he was about to throw
away. Having returned from the Great War in 1919, he was determined to find an antibiotic that would control those
bacterial infections that had been responsible for killing more people than the fighting during the war. However, few
agencies were interested in developing the penicillin. It was not until 1938 that a team of researchers, led by Florey
and Chain, at Oxford invited Fleming to join them and continue the work. And it was not until 1941, when the USA joined
the 2nd World War, and wanted treatments for injured soldiers, that funding was provided by the Rockefeller
Foundation to complete the development and testing of penicillin. In 1943 the large quantities of penicillin that were
demanded for treatments by the military were being produced in an agricultural research centre in Peoria in Illinois in
the corn belt of the USA.

[The life of a little boy in Walton on Thames in the UK was about to be revived as a result of these
developments over a 20 year period following the efforts of three Nobel laureates, and the massive funding by
the US government, and the National Health Service in the UK.]
I was not aware of any of this, nor did I care. I wanted to be left alone to get on and do what I wanted to do when I
wanted to do it. I certainly did not want to continue to take penicillin medicine as it was so horrible. Even more
opportunities for tears and tantrums.
My life had been blighted by ill health, but for many other children of his generation their lives had been blighted by the
loss of their fathers in action in the war. My father was at home as part of the essential services. He worked for Vickers
Armstrong, designing aeroplanes. I did not know that at the time. He never discussed his work, as he was subject to the
Official Secrets Act. And during the war was subject to the strictest security precautions. In fact, I hardly saw him, even
when I was at home. It was very much later [that is 20 years later] that he divulged that he had worked with Barnes
Wallis in the development of the bouncing bombs that broke the dams in Germany; was involved in the design of a
‘flying wing’, that many years later was realised in the USA as the Stealth Bomber; the creation of the jet engine with
Frank Whittle, and Rolls Royce; as a consultant to the Government in the programmes of atomic bomb testing near
Christmas Islands in the South Pacific. After the war he was a member of the design teams for the Comet; and later the
Concorde.
The provision of penicillin meant that I could now fight the bacteria that were generating the cycle of sore throats,
scarlet fever, and rheumatics and heart disease. But it also meant a lifetime of medical dependency, of drug treatment.
In the future, whenever I got a cold, and a sore throat, the penicillin tablets had to be taken as well. Whenever I went to
the dentist I would have to take a course of anti-biotics for several weeks before and after the dental treatment. Today,
I still have to take a single dose of a powerful anti-biotic before proceeding with dental treatment.

[No matter how assertive I wanted to be; how independent I thought I was, I was an individual that could only
survive to be on my own by being part of a complex matrix of specialists – doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
researchers, hospitals, clinics, medication, tablets.]

My survival did not depend on my family at all. They were not capable of looking after me for most of the time. I spent
that time in hospitals. By the time I was 11 and finally discharged from regular hospital care and supervision, I was the
stranger at home, living amongst strangers.
[All the information above, about the family, was gleaned very much later]
For my parents, years of hospital visiting was not the best way to get to know your child. For me, there was a brother
and sister who were never at home when I was. As I was so prone to infection, they were always sent away to the Grans
in Wales. So who on earth were they? What is amazing is that there is no tangible memory of this family. I do not have
any direct memory, only memories of reports by others. Perhaps this is the way in which the individual ego is able to
confront these events. On the other hand, what is the point of remembering days of lying in bed ! amongst other
patients, many of whom died.
What did this boy do all day long? This is difficult to say. When I was ill and under medication, I cannot remember at all.
Whole days must have gone by in a state of ‘inertness’. Existing. Breathing. Eating. Excreting. Being washed. What I
can remember is the joy of the bed bath, when two nurses would strip you, place you in a large warm towel, and then
wash and dry every inch of your body! And the man with the methylated spirits whose purpose was to thoroughly clean
and disinfect your private parts, penis and anus. Of course, the irony is that, in a hospital ward, there is no privacy, for
any action. These acts of personal hygiene were all done in full view of everybody. In fact all ‘private’ acts were public,
subject to the supervision of the nurses, and witnessed by all others in the ward.

[Could it be the case that the demands by this little boy to be left alone were rather demands for privacy than
for independence; to be able to do something without being watched and overheard?]

During the days of remission, of being allowed to feel well, all hell let loose. Jumping in and out bed. Shouting at the
nurses. Playing games. Boys being boys. But in general all these years are a blur. And even this is too strong as it
suggests that there is a memory. 2500 days of my life are ‘clean’. The activities I remember are not day specific. For
example, bed baths were part of the weekly routine for bed ridden patients.
This point raises an interesting perspective on the notion of ‘self’. For me, now, I am an active, thinking being , writing
and thinking, and trying to remember. Since these days of predicted death, I have lived for 67 years, or 24600 days.
But at least 10% of that time is a blank.
[I have achieved a future as a result of the dedication and actions of my family, and teams of medical staff
locally, nationally, and internationally. I want to call this ‘social freedom’. You may want to say that I have finally
achieved my ‘individual freedom’. Such a notion, by emphasizing the ‘individual’, ignores the significance of the
others in the many social networks that have enabled me to thrive. I want to underline that individuals are
dependent, interdependent, interconnected to all others, in patterns of social interaction as part of social
networks.]
In fact out of all those years of illness what is there worth remembering? what has been learnt?   I learnt not to get too
attached to anyone. I was in serious illness wards along with many others who were seriously ill. What this meant was
that on a daily basis my friends died and disappeared. And even if they did not die, they would move up or down the
ward. It was normal practise in most of the hospitals to place the very ill patients nearest the main entrance to the ward.
As you got better you would be moved further into the ward, until you reached the end, and may be discharged. So you
and your friends would be on a constant ‘escalator’ being moved along the ward. Sometimes being next to each other,
and later being 50 metres apart. The dead end or the live end!
The penicillin did the trick. The attacks by the streptococci abated and stopped. But they had done their damage. They
left a body with an enlarged heart, a constricted and leaky mitral valve, murmurs, leaks, uncertain blood circulation; a
‘bag of bones’ that needed care and attention, and ‘building up’; and a collection of joints that were full of rheumatism.
All of this was information held by the ‘medics’. I do not know who they shared it with. Certainly not me!
So what next? The doctors decided that they could not release this boy to the hurly-burly of home and school life, with
the constant threat of infection and falling over and being banged to the floor. Although the rheumatic fever was no
longer a problem, the heart condition was. They were faced with a new situation. In the past such patients died, sooner
than later. The use of penicillin meant that such patients survived. But what to do with these ‘damaged goods’?
In my case, it was another programme of hospital care, until such time that I died, or got strong enough to be sent
home. The creation of the National Health Service led to the construction of Children’s Hospitals, or wards for children
within the main hospital. It is worth noting that previous to 1948-49, children took their chances amongst the adults.
During all this time in hospital was there any educational provision? I cannot say. I cannot remember. I can say that
when I finally started Junior school at 10/11years of age I could read well and write. I do not remember when I learnt to
read nor where. But it must have been in a hospital, for I never went to school at this time. It must also have been after
the breakthrough with penicillin. There is only any point to learning to read when you have a future! Having learnt, I
assume that during the later years of hospital care I would pass the time reading.
During the period 1945-1951 hospitals were very cautious about treatments and consequences. I guess that under a
modern regime I would have been sent home to my family once the penicillin had halted the effects of streptococcal
infections. My life would have been very different, if this had happened in 1999………..assuming a clean bill of health.
But this was not the way at the time. I was a boy with a major heart condition. I could have died just by bending over, or
getting up too quickly! Hospital care was the only future.
Life was spent in a series of ‘heart hospitals’ in which the care concentrated on the treatment of the heart condition.
Heart operations were not on the agenda yet. Besides, here was a boy that was so prone to streptococcal infection,
and who was too thin and weak, that the medication necessary for the operation may have been more dangerous than
the operation.
Life in hospital is totally regimented and regular. There was a strict routine. Wake up at 6. Take tablets. Wash/bath.
Beds made. Breakfast at 7.30. Porridge. Egg and bacon. Doctor’s rounds at 1000. Tea and biscuits at 11.00. Doctor’s
rounds. Lunch at 1300. Tablets. Bed rest. Lessons? Afternoon tea 1600. Dinner 1800. Tablets. Lights out 2100.
Tablets. Four meals a day was part of the regime to get the patients physically stronger, to ‘build them up’. In fact each
patient had their own diet and measured portions. With a ‘bad heart’ you could not be allowed to over-eat!
I do remember that ‘lights out’ was the start of all sorts of goings on. The wards were for boys only, girls only. So the
more adventurous boys and girls would go on expeditions to find the other boys and girls and make various
assignations. In the boys wards, the more active would play games amongst the beds. The days would be completely
supervised by the nurses. The nights would be available to the patients. Of course, there were night nurses on duty,
but they would spend their time in the office and would only come out if there was an emergency or if the noise got too
great. It was always great fun to creep past their window without being seen and get out into the corridors and out of
the ward.
Although I have previously remarked that I cannot remember learning to read and write, it must have been during the
times spent at the ‘heart hospitals’ for children. It would have been an obvious thing to do for all the children in these
wards, and in accord with the education law of the time.
It is clear that here we have a child who is dependent and interdependent. Someone who would have died if it had not
been for the intervention of many people. Someone who would have died if it was not for the discovery and
development of ‘miracle’ drugs like aspirin, and penicillin, and later cortisone.

[So why is the child so indifferent to his interdependence? His dependency? Why is he unable to grasp that his
‘freedom’ to thrive is dependent upon the actions of others? a ‘social freedom’.
The rejection of others such as family, and medics, is it an action borne out of ignorance? Is such ignorance
part of being a child? Adults feel unable to tell a child the facts of the case. Why do adults believe that you
cannot tell children the truth? Children are kept in ignorance. Would John’s behaviour have been different if
he had known about his condition? Would he have reacted differently to his parents and family if he had
understood the illness he was suffering. There is plenty of evidence testifying to the resilience of children in
the face of hardship and disease and brutality. The Holocaust in Europe. The wars in the Sudan and Darfur.
The earthquakes in Indonesia and Sumatra. The storms in Louisiana.]

What ever is the case, since I left the hospitals, and followed a ‘normal’ life, I have always insisted on being told the
truth about my conditions, and telling others about theirs! and have discovered that many do not want to know!
Even when I was discharged to the care of my home, I was subject to the mediation and assistance of many other
medical and educational staff, as well as that family that I did not know. I remained an outpatient, and was required to
go to the heart specialist at Kingston Hospital every week, and later once a month, accompanied by my mother or
father. These trips took all day and continued for two years.
Once settled back at home, it was necessary to arrange to go to school. But for this boy with the bad heart this was no
easy matter. At first , I must have had a home tutor. I do remember that in 1953 the National Health Service helped my
parents financially with the provision of a television set, for educational purposes…….the first in the street. It was the
year of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth 2. On that day the house was full of people watching the ceremony on the
television.
In 1951 I was 10 years old. Arrangements were made for me to start at the local Junior school in September. My future
was to be based on one year of primary education! There were a number of problems that had to be overcome. First,
how was I to get to the school, which was three miles away? An ambulance car took me to school everyday. Was I to be
allowed to play in the playground? No. I will stay in the classroom; preferably with the teacher. Will I be able to go
through the school day without a rest ? No. I will have to have a rest during the lunch break. Where and what? The NHS
will provide a campbed, and I will lie down in the classroom during the break. All these arrangements identified me as a
freak!…..which indeed I was! So I was not happy about any of them: these adults continue to interfere with me.
However, the complexity of the support network for me is impressive. I now had a future as a result of the efforts of
medical researchers across the world; of Socialist politicians setting up the NHS; of specialist care by hospital doctors
and nurses; and now, by the special arrangements made by the teachers at the local primary school.
Of course, I failed the 11+, and I failed to get to the Grammar School. Arrangements were then made for me to go to
the local Secondary Modern School. But this was complicated. I was still under close medical supervision and
medication. I was the boy with the ‘bad heart’. The local secondary school, more than 3 miles away, had two floors, with
steep steps. For the first year it was decided that I would have to stay on the ground floor. No going up stairs. So a
unique timetable was devised whereby I went only to the classrooms on the ground floor. I cannot remember any of the
lessons during this time. But I do remember going to school by car. It was still the case that any slight infection was
treated by antibiotics and led to weeks off school. A home tutor would come to help me work through the lessons from
school.
[The extensive support for this one boy with the ‘bad heart’ was enabling him to get a grip on his life and to
have a future.
We have to conclude that, whether he knew it or not, his freedom to act is based entirely on his dependence
and interdependence on these social networks, a social freedom.]

My condition was still tenuous and fragile. One day, while standing in the playground watching a football match, or I may
even have been playing in the match, another boy ran into me and broke a front tooth. As the centre of any ‘strep’
infection is the mouth and teeth, I was rushed off to the local hospital for medication and inspection. The tooth was
broken in half and would have to be crowned. For a boy with rheumatic fever this would involve a major dental
operation. It would have to be done soon, but could not be done in Walton.
There was a specialist dental hospital in Kent .I went off to the hospital.

I was prepared with antibiotics and put under mild anaesthetic for the crowning of the tooth in the one day. This
operation involved close monitoring of the state of the heart at all times.
A routine procedure took several weeks to complete. A tribute to the skill of the dental surgeons is that the crown has
lasted intact for more than 50 years! and the boy with his ‘crown’ survived to see his retirement from employment at the
age of 65. The immensely complicated consequences of this playground incident clearly justifies the noted caution of
the doctors at the time as to the most appropriate ways of looking after this patient.
The fact that I was out and about in the playground at school was a signal that I was getting stronger. I stopped coming
to school by ambulance car, and started coming on my bicycle with my brother and sister. During 1954 I played more
and more out with my friends. I wanted to play football. My father agreed to me playing in goal. Not the best decision for
a boy with a heart condition, but better than letting him run about and get tackled and kicked. Later, I wanted to play
cricket. The most static role in the team is that of wicket keeper. So that was my position. During my last year at
secondary school in 1955/56, I was school cricket captain, and played in goal for the local District football team, and
went for trials with the County. I was going from strength to strength. The summer of 1956 saw me leave school as
Head Boy and with an outstanding School Certificate, and in the September I started at the local College of Further
Education. 1960 marked my entrance to Queen Mary College, University of London.
In 1960, I was certain that I had got to University by my own determination and efforts. In one sense this was correct. I
had not given up in the face of continuing adversity, and with only 7 years of full time education. Indeed, in 1958, with
the onset of the major international epidemic of Asian Flu, I had a recurrence of scarlet fever and rheumatic fever, and
had to spend 3 months in hospital and 3 months on convalescence. My memories of this illness are clearer. I can
remember the pains and rheumatic paralysis. They did not come suddenly but slowly. Over a period of a week I became
incapable of moving my arm to shave. Over 3 weeks I could not move my limbs at all. This meant that all functions that
involved movement had to be carried out with the help of someone else: including washing, bathing, urinating,
excreting; eating and drinking. One day, I was given new medication – cortisone. The ‘miracle’ drug developed by an
American chemist , Edward Kendall in 1950, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Overnight - I could move all my limbs. The fever went. The rheumatism disappeared. Saved by a miracle drug, again! I
was lucky again- research carried out on the other side of the world provided a cure for me. I survived. All the other
patients of all ages in the ward with me died. I was the sole survivor. I went off to Netley Abbey to convalesce. It was
later discovered that cortisone did not help older patients.
In September, I returned to the FE College and continued my studies.

[It is correct that John’s entry to University can be attributed to his hard work and determination, and his ability
to pass the necessary exams. But the very fact that he was alive was due to the complex networks of support
that had worked for him since 1945. It is clear that he was oblivious of these networks. His mindset was one
which emphasized his needs and not the work of others.
It is my view that his freedom to become an active, healthy adult was the direct result of the support provided
by social networks. His freedom is best described as ‘social freedom’. He is an individual existing within
processes of social interaction and dependency. His survival was an expression of social interdependency and
social interconnectedness. His social freedom is a fact based on his dependency on a range of social networks. I
would argue that we are all dependent, from the moment of our conception to our death. The current notions of
independence and individuality whereby we are free to do as we please are based on a delusion. We are never
free to do as we please without regard for others. We exist as elements that comprise patterns of social
freedom.]

Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft;
Independence, Interdependence;
Freedom, individual or social?

The Concept of Social Freedom

The concept of ‘Social freedom’ is an attempt to describe the ways in which we are all interdependent, and exercise our
freedoms in relationships with others. We cannot survive alone. Indeed it is impossible to be alone in any meaningful
way, even in isolation we carry the ideas, images and relationships of others within our heads. We exist within a social
matrix of relationships with others [gemeinschaft ?] We may be lonely, but not alone.
The conditions of society that have been described and criticized in this discourse are the by products of the mindsets
and cultural filters that inform the behaviors of capitalist communities, which ignore the reality of our interdependence.
They are built upon the delusion of independence which assumes that individuals can be free to pursue their own
freedom and aggrandizement regardless of others, and of the impact on others [gesellschaft ?] Such assumptions have
to be challenged. And are being challenged! on several fronts.
Bourdieu (1998) argued for the need to analyse the work of what he terms the 'new intellectuals' whom he blames for
creating a climate favourable to the withdrawal of the state and to the dominance of the values of the economy.
"I'm thinking of what has been called the 'return of individualism', a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy which tends to destroy
the philosophical foundations of the welfare state and in particular the notion of collective responsibility which has been
a fundamental achievement of social (and sociological)sciences ….The intellectual world is now the site of a struggle
aimed at producing and imposing 'new intellectuals', and therefore a new definition of the intellectual and the
intellectual's political role, a new definition of philosophy and the philosopher, henceforward engaged in the vague
debates of a political philosophy without technical content, a social science reduced to journalistic commentary for
election nights and uncritical glossing of unscientific opinion polls. Plato had a wonderful word for all these people;
doxosophers. These 'technicians of opinion who think themselves wise'…What I defend above all is the possibility and
the necessity of the critical intellectual, who is firstly critical of the intellectual doxa secreted by the doxosophers. There
is no genuine democracy without genuine opposing critical powers. The intellectual is one of those, of the first
magnitude.(p.7/8)
http://oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment/1986bourdieu.html )

New research in genetics has indicated the need to reinterpret the evidence about genes and their impact on altruism.
New theory: Selfish genes make humans selfless
By Diane Swanbrow
Humans are altruistic by nature, according to a new theory published in the current issue of Psychological Inquiry[2006]
The theory focuses on explaining the kind of altruistic behavior that involves costly long-term investment in others, such
as parenting,caring for the sick or injured, and protecting family and comrades in times of conflict or war. This behavior
typically entails considerable sacrifice-of time, effort, health, and even life itself. "Considering the self-centered motives
that are evolutionarily ancient and that continue to drive human behavior today, it's worth considering why people make
these kinds of sacrifices," says U-M psychologist Stephanie L. Brown, who developed the new theory in collaboration
with her father, Michael Brown, a psychology professor at Pacific Lutheran University.
Brown and Brown argue that the social bond-the glue of close interpersonal relationships-evolved to discount the risks
of engaging in high-cost altruism. They propose that social bonds override self-interest and motivate costly investment
in others. The formation of social bonds must have occurred mainly between individuals who were dependent upon one
another for reproductive success, or whose evolutionary fates were linked. "This linkage would have provided givers
with a genetic safety net, making them resistant to exploitation," says Brown, an assistant professor of general medicine
at the Medical School
<http://www.med.umich.edu/medschool/> and a faculty associate at the Institute for Social Research <http://www.isr.
umich.edu/> (ISR), affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program.

Effectively, the selective investment theory presents a striking alternative to traditional self-interest theories of close
relationships that tend to emphasize what individuals get from others, not what they give.
"Viewed through the lens of selective investment theory," Brown says,"the fabric of close relationships appears
different. Sacrifice becomes a characteristic feature of healthy, enduring relationships rather than aberrant,
inexplicable, or diagnostic of pathology" What makes selective investment theory distinctive not only is its focus on high-
cost altruism, but also its premise that "selfish genes" ultimately are responsible for selfless, other-directed behavior.
"Selfish genes can produce selfless humans," says Brown, explaining that high-cost altruism helped insure the survival,
growth and reproduction of increasingly interdependent members of ancestral hunter-gatherer groups.
"Viewed in this way, the spread of altruism in humans is no surprise," she says. "Even altruism directed to genetically
unrelated individuals is not as mysterious as some have supposed." In support of their theory, Brown and Brown cite
evidence from a wide range of fields, including neuroendocrinology, ethology and behavioral ecology, and relationship
science.
"The same hormones that underlie social bonds and affiliation, such as oxytocin, also stimulate giving behavior under
conditions of interdependence," Brown says. The Browns say their theory has important implications for relationship
science. "We do not deny that close relationships involve selfish motivation," says Stephanie Brown, "but the picture
may be more complex. If social bonds evolved to support altruism then we may need to re-think the way we view human
sociality. Models of psychological hedonism and rational self-interest may need to be expanded in order to describe our
behaviors in families, at work and even on the national stage."
Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of Michigan
<http://www.umich.edu/~regents/>
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA 1-734-764-1817

Can we reconcile the models of hedonism and self-interest with those of social bonds and interdependence? All the
evidence of our personal lives as children, and as adults; as pupils, friends, brothers, sisters, parents, teachers, family,
workers, employers,and so on, indicate that we exist within various social networks,
providing mutual support. However, despite these facts of dependence and interdependence, it is clear that many
individuals disregard this evidence, and construct personal visions in which they are free to do as they please, and
exploit others for their own aggrandisement. For example, the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, did not achieve his
riches on his own. He did it by working with teams of brilliant technologists and marketing experts to devise Microsoft
systems; and then he constructed a legal framework in which a significant percentage of all profits came to him only. At
some point, he and his lawyers took the decision to exploit the efforts and support of the workers and managers so as
to maximise the profits for Bill Gates. Why would anyone do this? Is it because the one believes him-self to be more
worthy and deserving than any others? Does the one see him-self as superior to others? They could have decided to
form a cooperative in which all the workers shared the profits of their labour. Microsoft Corporation could have decided,
as did Linux with their systems, to make the Windows operating system free to all users and to make profits through
applications and programmes. There are many alternatives. It is argued that Bill Gates, et al, deserve the profits
because they took the risks. Such special pleading is nonsense. No entrepreneur takes risks in isolation. The initial
capital is put up by Banks, and other companies, and individuals. In any case the Banks and companies are not using
their own money, they are using the monies of their customers and investors. The ‘double whammy’ in such capitalist
systems is that while the chief executives maximise their personal profits, s/he avoids the losses. The system is so
constructed that the workers lose their jobs and income, and the many investors lose their money. For example, the
credit crisis of 2007 saw the collapse of many investment houses, and hedge funds, across the world. It was the
investors that suffered losses. The senior executives had already taken their fees up front, and were able to survive the
crisis. After all, if you had paid yourself $1.5 billion for the year, who cares about the other ‘fools’ who were caught
napping!

The concept of Social Freedom is offered as an alternative to hedonism, self-interest, and individualism. Social
Freedom involves an epistemology of social interaction, dependence and interdependence. It is not ‘communist’ in the
modern sense, according to which each person is subject to the dictates of the leaders of the commune, or the political
party. Nor is it ‘communitarian’ whereby individuals have to do as ‘the community’ demands. Nor is it to be regarded as
any type of nationalism, which claimed to develop ‘social freedom’ but in fact were exclusive, fascist and racist, fostering
the freedoms of the national society. Some of these doctrines were the most extreme forms of elitism.
Our Social Freedom, or as Murray Bookchin described it, Social Ecology, recognizes the actions of individuals by
drawing attention to the social networks in which they are enacted. It means that we become free by learning and
interacting with others. We cannot be free as ‘one’, only as ‘many’. This means that we have to develop a philosophy
and a morality that sees ‘others’ as significant, not just figments of our imaginations or as lesser people. We act and
interact together.
Some may not like the term ‘social freedom’, or even see it as a contradiction in terms, but it is coined so as to express
the ways in which our social interactions involve us all. What we do, we learn from others; and impacts upon others.
Once we accept our social interdependence, we can work together to secure the freedom of all. So the notion of
individual freedom as freedom from others is a delusion. An individual human cannot exist, nor survive, nor thrive,
alone.
Social freedom emphasizes our interdependence and the need to recognize our relationships with all groups whether
we know them or not. We need to recognize that we can only be free through others. For example, John after many
years in hospital returned home and was free to develop his ideas and skills through interactions with his family, with
schools and the myriad of educational opportunities which then became open to him. Without these opportunities John
could never have gained access to Higher Education, qualifications for employment and the freedom to establish his
own family. John may have believed that his achievements were his alone but in fact they were the result of his social
support, his individual freedom was social freedom. Whether we recognize it or not, our social interdependence is a
social fact. Our social lives are a continuum in which the actions of all affect all.
Within this framework, any notions of ‘individual freedom’ are best regarded as those rules and laws that protect the
position of ‘one to one’, ‘one to many’, so that the one is not dominated by others.
The nature of our interdependence and interconnections is clearly illustrated by the occurrence and spread of
diseases. Irrespective of where the disease started, there are diseases now that are world wide, presenting a danger to
everybody- HIV Aids [recent research shows spread to USA from Haiti]; Influenza [from Spain;from Asia], avian flu [from
China], colds, foot and mouth disease [the UK], mad cow disease [the UK], dysentery, malaria. So we are living within a
social matrix that operates across time and space, and between people, and between species. Other people, and other
animals, are not phantasms sent to trick us. They provide each individual with their genes, their habitat, their cultural
milieu, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not.
I recognize that these inter-relationships that generate our social freedoms are not simple one-one; they are one –
many; many-many. The actions of the one may be significant, but so are the actions, and perspectives of the many. It
could be argued that the one who takes all the profits is enabled to do so with the permission of all others; all of whom
expect, and accept, such actions. The women across the world, who are treated as second class citizens, accept such
treatment because they accept that status. They do not want to do or are not able to do anything about it. So there is a
moral responsibility for the one, and the many, to realize their interdependence.
Ignoring our interdependence has drastic consequences particularly on the environment. Conservationists assert that
if we continue to seek our individual gratification by consuming all the products and all the resources, then there will be
no sustainable future for our children. The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about
the hunger of others; that in order to secure the happiness of all we must act in consideration of all others.
Humans have to see that they are responsible for all the damage and destruction, the inequality and exploitation. They
are responsible for conservation and renewal; and to accept that this world is the only ‘home’ not a temporary stop! on
the way to ‘heaven’. All people are responsible for each other, and need to care and share; not disregard and destroy
others because they have different beliefs; or look different; or speak different languages. It is necessary to adopt a
different mind set, to use another cultural filter.

Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, emphasized the truth
of the ancient Bantu adage ‘numuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’
(we are people through other people).And he saw, the inevitability
of "mutual interdependence" in the human condition, that
"the common ground is greater and more enduring
than the differences that divide.".
http://www.nobel.se/peace/articles/mandela/index.html

If we consider humans as problem solving, tool using animals that live in communities, then the dilemmas set by
environmental issues, poverty, capitalism, globalisation, and others are another set of problems that may only be
solved by social action based on our interdependence, and recognition of the need to gain social freedom through
this social interaction.

Kofi Annan in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize states that:
We have entered the third millennium through a gate of fire. If today,
after the horror of 11 September, we see better, and we see further,
we will realize that humanity is indivisible. New threats make no
distinction between races, nations or regions. A new insecurity has
entered every mind, regardless of wealth or status. A deeper
awareness of the bonds that bind us all ‘ in pain as in prosperity ‘
has gripped young and old.

Researches into environmental changes have indicated that some actions have global impacts. The use of certain
chemicals; the widespread use of coal and lignite; the combustion of oil products; the discharge of sewage into the sea,
and lakes; have catastrophic effects upon the atmosphere and the lithosphere of the earth.
Environmental studies, and the development of ecology, have revealed that the actions of humans in one part of the
world impact directly upon those in other parts. We can no longer pretend that what we do locally has no impact
globally.
Ecology has indicated that we are all embroiled in environmental networks, and that we have to think of all humans as
part of our global societies, and as active elements in the environment.
Social Ecology leads us to see that we are a global community, able to act and think locally and globally.
Once I see that I am socially interdependent on everyone, and that I gain any freedoms in unison with others, then I can
see the moral imperative to care and share for others. I must look after my 'sisters and brothers'. Once I give everybody
else 'value' and recognise that they are 'worthy', then I must look after them. I do not need any belief in 'god' to give
me the authority to care for others: only to believe in the value and worth of all others.

A Social Epistemology
Knowledge and Truth
One implication of my arguments for social interdependence and social freedom is that knowledge is 'socially mediated'
and that we know 'a posteriori': a social epistemology. This is in opposition to many classical and analytical
philosophers who have spent a lot of time questioning the validity of ‘experience’, and the ‘knowledge’ derived from any
such ‘experiences’. This has led them at times to challenge the reality of the presence of others, and the existences of
objects, and to regard them as figments of our ‘experiences’. The fact that we ‘experience’ ourselves means that ‘I' and
'we’ are figments and to be regarded as uncertain. These arguments have been pursued by empiricists, such as John
Locke, and rationalists' like Plato, and later, Descartes, and idealists like Hume.
Empiricists propose that sense experience is the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge. They claim that we
know, ‘a posteriori’.
Rationalists describe the ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense and
experience: Reason provides our information about the world, by intuition, deduction, innate knowledge, ‘a priori’. This
means that we are born with constructs and concepts which allow us to organise our experiences and find the truth.
Idealism takes this a step further, and rejects the separate existence of an external world, and regards the spiritual,
and the ideal, as primary sources of knowledge. What we see and feel are figments of our imagination. If there is a
world beyond, idealists regard it as unknowable and as an expression of ideal forces.
The rejection of ‘experience’ was due to the uncertainties of such experiences. Many people have been looking for
certainty, and for the truth. The fact that different individuals interpret similar experiences in different ways has led
philosophers to conclude that such experiences cannot be the source of truth. Another problem is that ‘I’ cannot
experience what ‘you’ are experiencing. I can explain or describe the experiences, but cannot experience them. So
these experiences are regarded as not verifiable.
The rejection of ‘experience’ in these ways has meant that many forms of philosophy have been divorced from all forms
of ‘common sense’, and been reduced to a debate about the meaning of words and phrases and the logical
relationships of our ideas and statements, without any reference to knowledge and facts in the external world. The
significance of Descartes and his critical discourse was that he accepted finally his own existence as a fact, as a truth,
as provable. ‘I think, therefore I am’ is presented as the baseline for all rational thought and behaviour. He upheld the
rationalist tradition by recognising the validity of thoughts, of ideas. It was not good enough that I feel; I see; I talk. In his
discourse, the most distinctive fact is that I think, and I am witnessed by ‘God’. One of the implications of his analysis is
that given that ‘I am’, then I can know and prove that ‘I am’. But he did establish that ‘I can know’ the truth, and do not
need gods to tell me the truth. I can work it out for myself.’ This existential philosophy led to various forms of existential
psychology and sociology, and ultimately to existential economics. All of these disciplines involved the study of the
individual: the one not the many. [www.plato.stanford.edu;www.marxists.org; www.wikipedia.org]

‘Epistemology’ is devoted to the nature, sources, and limits to knowledge, and undertakes to devise theories of
knowledge. The classical and analytical thinkers of the past carried out their meditations and reflections alone, trying to
justify the validity of their knowledge and truth with reference to the rules of logic. The products of their deliberations
were written as a private conversa