[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Thus we hear increasing calls for anti-planning or non-planning, sometimeseuphemized as "organic growth." Among some radicals, this takes on an anarchist coloration.Not only is it regarded as unnecessary or unwise to make long-range plans for the future ofthe institution or society they wish to overturn, it is sometimes even regarded as poor taste toplan the next hour and a half of a meeting.Planlessness is glorified.Arguing that planning imposes values on the future, the anti-planners overlook the factthat non-planning does so, too often with far worse consequence.Angered by the narrow,econocentric character of technocratic planning, they condemn systems analysis, cost benefitaccounting, and similar methods, ignoring the fact that, used differently, these very toolsmight be converted into powerful techniques for humanizing the future.When critics charge that technocratic planning is anti-human, in the sense that itneglects social, cultural and psychological values in its headlong rush to maximize economicgain, they are usually right.When they charge that it is shortsighted and undemocratic, theyare usually right.When they charge it is inept, they are usually right.But when they plunge backward into irrationality, anti-scientific attitudes, a kind ofsick nostalgia, and an exaltation of now-ness, they are not only wrong, but dangerous.Just as,in the main, their alternatives to industrialism call for a return to pre-industrial institutions,their alternative to technocracy is not post-, but pre-technocracy.Nothing could be more dangerously maladaptive.Whatever the theoretical argumentsmay be, brute forces are loose in the world.Whether we wish to prevent future shock orcontrol population, to check pollution or defuse the arms race, we cannot permit decisions ofearth-jolting importance to be taken heedlessly, witlessly, planlessly.To hang loose is tocommit collective suicide.We need not a reversion to the irrationalisms of the past, not a passive acceptance ofchange, not despair or nihilism.We need, instead, a strong new strategy.For reasons that willbecome clear, I term this strategy "social futurism." I am convinced that, armed with thisstrategy, we can arrive at a new level of competence in the management of change.We caninvent a form of planning more humane, more far-sighted, and more democratic than any sofar in use.In short, we can transcend technocracy. THE HUMANIZATION OF THE PLANNERTechnocrats suffer from econo-think.Except during war and dire emergency, they start fromthe premise that even non-economic problems can be solved with economic remedies.Social futurism challenges this root assumption of both Marxist and Keynesianmanagers.In its historical time and place, industrial society's single-minded pursuit ofmaterial progress served the human race well.As we hurtle toward super-industrialism,however, a new ethos emerges in which other goals begin to gain parity with, and evensupplant those of economic welfare.In personal terms, self-fulfillment, social responsibility,aesthetic achievement, hedonistic individualism, and an array of other goals vie with andoften overshadow the raw drive for material success.Affluence serves as a base from whichmen begin to strive for varied post-economic ends.At the same time, in societies arrowing toward super-industrialism, economicvariables wages, balance of payments, productivity grow increasingly sensitive tochanges in the non-economic environment.Economic problems are plentiful, but a wholerange of issues that are only secondarily economic break into prominence.Racism, the battlebetween the generations, crime, cultural autonomy, violence all these have economicdimensions; yet none can be effectively treated by econocentric measures alone.The move from manufacturing to service production, the psychologization of bothgoods and services, and ultimately the shift toward experiential production all tie theeconomic sector much more tightly to non-economic forces.Consumer preferences turn overin accordance with rapid life style changes, so that the coming and going of subcults ismirrored in economic turmoil.Super-industrial production requires workers skilled in symbolmanipulation, so that what goes on in their heads becomes much more important than in thepast, and much more dependent upon cultural factors.There is even evidence that the financial system is becoming more responsive to socialand psychological pressures.It is only in an affluent society on its way to super-industrialismthat one witnesses the invention of new investment vehicles, such as mutual funds, that areconsciously motivated or constrained by non-economic considerations.The VanderbiltMutual Fund and the Provident Fund refuse to invest in liquor or tobacco shares.The giantMates Fund spurns the stock of any company engaged in munitions production, while the tinyVantage 10/90 Fund invests part of its assets in industries working to alleviate food andpopulation problems in developing nations.There are funds that invest only, or primarily, inracially integrated housing.The Ford Foundation and the Presbyterian Church both investpart of their sizeable portfolios in companies selected not for economic payout alone, but fortheir potential contribution to solving urban problems.Such developments, still small innumber, accurately signal the direction of change.In the meantime, major American corporations with fixed investments in urban centers,are being sucked, often despite themselves, into the roaring vortex of social change.Hundreds of companies are now involved in providing jobs for hard-core unemployed, inorganizing literacy and job-training programs, and in scores of other unfamiliar activities.Soimportant have these new involvements grown that the largest corporation in the world, theAmerican Telephone and Telegraph Company, recently set up a Department ofEnvironmental Affairs.A pioneering venture, this agency has been assigned a range of tasksthat include worrying about air and water pollution, improving the aesthetic appearance of thecompany's trucks and equipment, and fostering experimental pre-school learning programs inurban ghettos.None of this necessarily implies that big companies are growing altruistic; itmerely underscores the increasing intimacy of the links between the economic sector andpowerful cultural, psychological and social forces. While these forces batter at our doors, however, most technocratic planners andmanagers behave as though nothing had happened.They continue to act as though theeconomic sector were hermetically sealed off from social and psychocultural influences.Indeed, econocentric premises are buried so deeply and held so widely in both the capitalistand communist nations, that they distort the very information systems essential for themanagement of change.For example, all modern nations maintain elaborate machinery for measuring economicperformance.We know virtually day by day the directions of change with respect toproductivity, prices, investment, and similar factors.Through a set of "economic indicators"we gauge the overall health of the economy, the speed at which it is changing, and the overalldirections of change [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.Thus we hear increasing calls for anti-planning or non-planning, sometimeseuphemized as "organic growth." Among some radicals, this takes on an anarchist coloration.Not only is it regarded as unnecessary or unwise to make long-range plans for the future ofthe institution or society they wish to overturn, it is sometimes even regarded as poor taste toplan the next hour and a half of a meeting.Planlessness is glorified.Arguing that planning imposes values on the future, the anti-planners overlook the factthat non-planning does so, too often with far worse consequence.Angered by the narrow,econocentric character of technocratic planning, they condemn systems analysis, cost benefitaccounting, and similar methods, ignoring the fact that, used differently, these very toolsmight be converted into powerful techniques for humanizing the future.When critics charge that technocratic planning is anti-human, in the sense that itneglects social, cultural and psychological values in its headlong rush to maximize economicgain, they are usually right.When they charge that it is shortsighted and undemocratic, theyare usually right.When they charge it is inept, they are usually right.But when they plunge backward into irrationality, anti-scientific attitudes, a kind ofsick nostalgia, and an exaltation of now-ness, they are not only wrong, but dangerous.Just as,in the main, their alternatives to industrialism call for a return to pre-industrial institutions,their alternative to technocracy is not post-, but pre-technocracy.Nothing could be more dangerously maladaptive.Whatever the theoretical argumentsmay be, brute forces are loose in the world.Whether we wish to prevent future shock orcontrol population, to check pollution or defuse the arms race, we cannot permit decisions ofearth-jolting importance to be taken heedlessly, witlessly, planlessly.To hang loose is tocommit collective suicide.We need not a reversion to the irrationalisms of the past, not a passive acceptance ofchange, not despair or nihilism.We need, instead, a strong new strategy.For reasons that willbecome clear, I term this strategy "social futurism." I am convinced that, armed with thisstrategy, we can arrive at a new level of competence in the management of change.We caninvent a form of planning more humane, more far-sighted, and more democratic than any sofar in use.In short, we can transcend technocracy. THE HUMANIZATION OF THE PLANNERTechnocrats suffer from econo-think.Except during war and dire emergency, they start fromthe premise that even non-economic problems can be solved with economic remedies.Social futurism challenges this root assumption of both Marxist and Keynesianmanagers.In its historical time and place, industrial society's single-minded pursuit ofmaterial progress served the human race well.As we hurtle toward super-industrialism,however, a new ethos emerges in which other goals begin to gain parity with, and evensupplant those of economic welfare.In personal terms, self-fulfillment, social responsibility,aesthetic achievement, hedonistic individualism, and an array of other goals vie with andoften overshadow the raw drive for material success.Affluence serves as a base from whichmen begin to strive for varied post-economic ends.At the same time, in societies arrowing toward super-industrialism, economicvariables wages, balance of payments, productivity grow increasingly sensitive tochanges in the non-economic environment.Economic problems are plentiful, but a wholerange of issues that are only secondarily economic break into prominence.Racism, the battlebetween the generations, crime, cultural autonomy, violence all these have economicdimensions; yet none can be effectively treated by econocentric measures alone.The move from manufacturing to service production, the psychologization of bothgoods and services, and ultimately the shift toward experiential production all tie theeconomic sector much more tightly to non-economic forces.Consumer preferences turn overin accordance with rapid life style changes, so that the coming and going of subcults ismirrored in economic turmoil.Super-industrial production requires workers skilled in symbolmanipulation, so that what goes on in their heads becomes much more important than in thepast, and much more dependent upon cultural factors.There is even evidence that the financial system is becoming more responsive to socialand psychological pressures.It is only in an affluent society on its way to super-industrialismthat one witnesses the invention of new investment vehicles, such as mutual funds, that areconsciously motivated or constrained by non-economic considerations.The VanderbiltMutual Fund and the Provident Fund refuse to invest in liquor or tobacco shares.The giantMates Fund spurns the stock of any company engaged in munitions production, while the tinyVantage 10/90 Fund invests part of its assets in industries working to alleviate food andpopulation problems in developing nations.There are funds that invest only, or primarily, inracially integrated housing.The Ford Foundation and the Presbyterian Church both investpart of their sizeable portfolios in companies selected not for economic payout alone, but fortheir potential contribution to solving urban problems.Such developments, still small innumber, accurately signal the direction of change.In the meantime, major American corporations with fixed investments in urban centers,are being sucked, often despite themselves, into the roaring vortex of social change.Hundreds of companies are now involved in providing jobs for hard-core unemployed, inorganizing literacy and job-training programs, and in scores of other unfamiliar activities.Soimportant have these new involvements grown that the largest corporation in the world, theAmerican Telephone and Telegraph Company, recently set up a Department ofEnvironmental Affairs.A pioneering venture, this agency has been assigned a range of tasksthat include worrying about air and water pollution, improving the aesthetic appearance of thecompany's trucks and equipment, and fostering experimental pre-school learning programs inurban ghettos.None of this necessarily implies that big companies are growing altruistic; itmerely underscores the increasing intimacy of the links between the economic sector andpowerful cultural, psychological and social forces. While these forces batter at our doors, however, most technocratic planners andmanagers behave as though nothing had happened.They continue to act as though theeconomic sector were hermetically sealed off from social and psychocultural influences.Indeed, econocentric premises are buried so deeply and held so widely in both the capitalistand communist nations, that they distort the very information systems essential for themanagement of change.For example, all modern nations maintain elaborate machinery for measuring economicperformance.We know virtually day by day the directions of change with respect toproductivity, prices, investment, and similar factors.Through a set of "economic indicators"we gauge the overall health of the economy, the speed at which it is changing, and the overalldirections of change [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]