Talk presented at the Grappling with the Futures conference held in Boston on 29-30 April 2018, co-hosted by Harvard and Boston University. This captures the essence of Chapter 5 of the book I am trying to write while here at Yale entitled Just Transitions in a Complex World: Reflections of an Enraged Incrementalist. In the talk I say the title is Just Transitions FOR a Complex World – but I think the latter is better.
Herewith the ppt presentation I used to illustrate only some aspects of the talk: Grappling
Dear Mark,
Have been following some of your work recently and do consider the intersection of your work and Edgar Pieterse / Malik Simones work and the ‘Stellenbosch school’ methodology reflections as the best development thinking presently – real excited for you to finish the book so I we can read the further steps in your thinking. The State Capture stuff seems to be an unnecessary footnote and in my view comes across more as ‘angry modernist moralism’ and perhaps does not fit well with the rich thinking of an ‘enraged Incrementalist’.
Perhaps I am conceptually slow to understand some of the complex thinking in your unfolding work – but seems to me that you will struggle to find the bridge between survival experiments and ‘mirroring’ that unfolds as the informal intersects with the formal – and futurism. The logic that drives futurism, modernity, planning, ecological alternatives gives you the Barcelona urban form. This is generally built upon corporate research and innovation that comes with aggregated economic and political systems. The logic that drives the old Lagos (amongst others) is survival, experimentation, imitation and constant adjustment. This generally unfolds in situations of economic distress and where people continue as best as possible despite and in spite of political or economic aggregation.
Outside of the impossible bridge you are attempting to build – the alternative in my view is a complete breakdown (not as structural Marxist would propose) of all forms of economic and political aggregation in a manner that releases the wider energy that exists across societies for innovation and change. Even as I wait in anticipation for your book, I don’t see a way out – beyond that which comes from already enraged anarchists, such as Chomsky. A simple and incremental step forward from current (which is already happening) is completely ignoring patents and related intellectual property rights. This is not structural fetishism at all and, in my view, perhaps represents the best form of radicle incrementalism. Hopeful I will grow to understand your work better and possibly I am speaking from a point of pure ignorance. But I really don’t think you can reconcile or create a transition between a more anarchist type appreciation of local ingenuity with the modernist, economic – political aggregation, planning and neo–liberal driven futurism.
If I am completely missing the point, I will perhaps have to register on one your programmes, wash feet and cook organic, to progress and appreciate the Stellenbosch School.
You take care and enjoy the rest of the sabbatical and please keep us informed when the book is out.
Salim
PS: If the urban is the future, why reduce the value of your reflections/research to defining it in this manner. I think it’s still the best ‘development; thinking globally and should be articulated outside of giving it an ‘urban something’ type title or suggested focus.