A Tale of Two Authors

How did Naomi Klein become Naomi Klein?

Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the family (educational) culture from which she emerged:

Klein was brought up in a Jewish family with a history of left-wing activism, as was her husband, Avi Lewis. Her paternal grandparents were Marxists who began to turn against the Soviet Union after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and had abandoned Communism entirely by 1956. Her grandfather, an artist, was fired from Disney for labour organizing. Her father Michael, a physician, was a Vietnam War resister (her parents moved from the US to Canada to avoid the draft) and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her mother, film-maker Bonnie Sherr Klein, directed and scripted the anti-pornography documentary film, Not a Love Story. Her brother Seth is director of the British Columbia office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Her in-laws are Michele Landsberg and Stephen Lewis, son of David Lewis. (1)

What life work/study would you suspect might be impelled by the cultural opportunity made possible to Naomi Klein by her immediate family? Yep, you’re right.

Among her writings, two books: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and an earlier No Logo: Taking Aim at Brand Bullies. In addition, her activism worldwide which confronts oppressively undemocratic and unsustainably exploitative socioeconomic behavior of a powerfully few.

Here’s a link to Naomi Klein’s website. Below is a YouTube video of her discussing The Shock Doctrine:

Naomi Klein is no Chris Langan–the no-account “genius” (loser?) whom Malcolm Gladwell contrasts with the outlier Robert Oppenheimer in the Outliers. But does Naomi Klein conveniently fit in Gladwell’s all-male club of celebrated/celebrity outliers? Let me explain.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers is “simpler” by Einstein’s measure than it need be. A friend Nancy’s use of the phrase “alignment of the stars” seems an appropriate description of Gladwell’s explanation of why extreme “success” happens; in my view, Gladwell seems more an astrologer than astronomer, more mythologist than scientist.

Perhaps inadvertently, Gladwell purveys to parents/educators hungering for confirmation that pushing their children/students through a schooling culture of competitive credential accumulation is what’s really best for them. Take advantage of (and ace) training opportunities and hold your own self-promotionally when encountering gatekeepers and you’ll get to work in somebody’s big house and out of the field working as a lowly hand. The more time and effort you devote to making yourself useful and to gaining the appreciation of your superiors/clients, the greater you’ll see your success (narcissistically) in their mirrors. Where’s the personally, uniquely creative dimension in this male-dominated scrum for fame and fortune?

In a world where the 44 richest people (all men) have acquired as much wealth as the poorest 2,500,000,000, do you think that Gladwell’s “astrological” account is as sufficiently explanatory about the reality of a variety of less conspicuous and less fanfared forms of real success (on-the-ground?), and even outliers’ success itself? It seems to me that there is a scientific account based on testable, simply stated principles, akin to an evo-devo explanation of “natural selection,” which broadly explains social success of human groups and the individuals who are identifiable within them.

Turning Learning Right Side Up

What happens when you mix:
an American organizational theorist, consultant, and Anheuser-Busch Professor Emeritus of Management Science at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, who is a pioneer in the field of operations research, systems thinking and management science,
and
the founder in 1968 of a place where people decide for themselves how to spend their days; where students of all ages determine what they will do, as well as when, how, and where they will do it; which belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated?

They write a book collaboratively in 2008 which is titled Turning Learning Right Side Up.

Russell L. Ackoff and Daniel Greenberg are the volatile mix of exceptionally non-conforming, playfully democratic, and value-driven minds.

Both of these “wild and crazy guys” have been intellectual-activist heroes of mine for a long time–separately in his own field. Each of them has remarkable organizational and personal development results to show for their unconventional professional thinking and efforts.

Thanks very much to a friend of mine Mike for pointing out the book. I just ordered a copy of it.

Radical Enlightenment

Have you read Counterculture Through the Ages: From Abraham to Acid House by Ken Goffman (a.k.a. R. U. Sirius)? Great fun in telling the story of the culturally verboten and politically incorrect! (For example, Goffman sees the insurrectionist Boston Tea Party as the epitome of playful outrageousness–the kind, however, that gets the American revolutionary spirit through to the political mind of the populace.)

While I liked Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason, her Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism better celebrates the most cherished and legitimately historical Enlightenment tradition in the U.S. republic which has been challenged from the beginning by Counter-Enlightenment cultural “pushbacks” of various kinds–religiously/culturally antidemocratic (socially hierarchical) at base and narrowly opportunistic in their effects on social and economic development.

Last month over about a week’s time, I read Jonathan I. Israel’s (tome) Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752. First, it makes the case that revolutionary ideas in elites’ and peoples’ heads matter more than a mere marxian-like ripeness of socioeconomic dysfunctions in whether or not people act to overthrow ancien regimes and assume popular sovereignty. Also, Israel argues cogently that what actually is the contention between two Enlightenment traditions, one Radical, the other moderate–not their contention (as though they were seemingly one) against a persistent Counter-Enlightenment–is key to understanding modernity. Those who find their philosophical/moral roots in Spinoza and Bayle (monist radicals who welcome today’s “embodied” philosophers like Lakeoff and Rorty and the overwhelming majority of today’s neuroscientists) continue to contend with moderate dualists who find Leibniz, Newton, Locke, Voltaire, and others who are quite comfortable with Descartes’ accommodating split of the natural and the supernatural. Perhaps my favorite book on this contention between the radically and the moderately enlightened is Matthew Stewart’s The Courtier and Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World. Stewart has written several great reads about modernity, but this one tops them all in cutting to the heart of what’s at issue in democratically re-forming our minds, moral direction, and political-cultural world. (Besides, it’s half about Baruch de Spinoza, whom I consider the most misunderstood, underestimated, and important thinker of all time. But then, that’s my opinion, not gospel.)

Play, who’d ‘a thunk it so serious

I just got the first issue of my print subscription to Scientific American Mind, and its lead article (“on page 22,” it says on the cover, which pictures a young fellow in a business suit juggling colorful balls in the air) is titled “The Serious Need for Play: How it improves your creativity, emotional health–and cuts stress.” I wonder if this cognitive neuroscientific topic is viral: I haven’t googled the major professional journals, but I’d be willing to bet the idea’s been making the rounds. (BTW, I don’t care for SA Mind’s subtitle for the article. It seems they stopped short in their list of benefits of play that it prevents tooth decay or body odor or…. ;)

The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything

A new posting at the TED Blog announces Sir Ken Robinson’s new book titled The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything and provides a link to a video of his TED presentation on creativity in 2006. I continue to listen to what has been Robinson’s clear voice on creativity and human being. Awakening students’ passions of mind and heart in learning is as revolutionary and fundamental an aim as I can imagine for constructing an educational agenda.

The Inner Lives of Children

Krista Tippett’s interview of Robert Cole is a gem.

I’ve often found kids to be prophetic in their take on happenings in the lives we share with them. Their curious natures are attuned to the questioning and storytelling at the heart of the great spiritual traditions. Their courage to express what they see truthfully and justly, even when others may try to teach them it’s best to look at things conformingly, is the spiritual fount not only for religious exploration and the growth of philosophical awareness, but also for scientific exploration and the growth in knowledge of natural phenomena.

There is personal power to be gained and effectively shared when kids and the humblest of “kids” within adults appreciate the mystery of, if not the answers to, the biggest of questions we can ask. We adults are often embarrassed by and seek to avoid mysteries we can’t explain; kids celebrate mysteries as wonderful companions for their curiosity. Even more than we adults do, they understand the world best through stories, not logical explanations–stories that have meaningful happenings in them–that dramatically tell the loss, hope, and recovery they experience themselves or see others experience.

Despite misfortunes which may happen to them or those close to them, when their vitality and good humor are supported by us in caring for them, kids learn to lead their own lives in ways that allow them to emotionally connect with others that are more fateful to their success in being productive and happy than the material means conventionally assumed to be indispensable to it. We need to give much more attention to kids’ “spontaneity and particularity,” as Robert Cole counsels, and to listen responsively to the big questions they ask. These are key to engaging them in learning who to be and what to do and why.

“evolutionary aesthetics”?

I just ordered Denis Dutton’s new book The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. I read about it at my mind on books, a great blog to which I’ve been paying attention for a number of months due to my interest in cognitive science, complexity, and twenty-first century challenges to human sustainability.