- / -
After many years
of exposure to claims and injunctions regarding "development", a certain
weariness sets in. So many examples of "development" have become soulless disasters -- as
tourism to the most distant parts of the planet rapidly makes evident. It could be argued that
“development” has been a prime cause of environmental degradation. Where it has reduced
earlier constraints, it has encouraged further increases in population. It is claimed that
development is the prime strategy to reduce birthrates. But little attention is paid to the fact that
those amongst whom it is reduced then draw many times more heavily on non-renewable
natural resources -- especially over succeeding generations. The United Nations has
compromised itself through failing to distinguish what the property "developer" does from
what
some would claim to be genuine development. Why are there only "developers" and no
"developees"? Does any remaining credibility of development derive from the cultivated
ambiguity between what "developers" want (and intend to get) and what "developees"
naively
assume they are going to achieve as a result?
How is significance
sustained? This is a challenge in many domains. It is a challenge for religion,
with the possibility of loss of faith -- met largely by practice in the form of song, prayer and
ritual. It is a challenge in fashion --where designers explore outrageous possibilities in order to
be able to return to classic designs. It is faced by inveterate tourists and party-goers --
constantly obliged to strike a balance between the tried-and-true and the risks of places
offering something different. Even the very rich find themselves obliged to migrate between their
various abodes. It is faced by families at Christmas or similar occasions -- what ensures that the
occasion remains special? It is evident in married life -- and notably in sexual relationships. It is
faced by the especially cultured -- when they have "read all the books". It is often most
evident
in cooking for a family group -- what sustains the significance of meal-times? But it is also a
challenge for a discipline or school of thought, or even an ideology --how can it be kept
meaningful over the years for new generations. It is a challenge for intentional communities --
where, as for the kibbutzim, children are attracted elsewhere as they grow older. It is even a
challenge for a dialogue --why does it eventually lose its flavour?
Maybe the future
will clarify the art of veloping. It calls perhaps for a new kind of social
architecture. How is a space to be subdivided to retain its coherence, allowing the parts to
express themselves uniquely? How can the organization of such a space continue to emerge
through processes of self-organization? Can it only velop by budding and exporting micro-
communities? Does it have to attempt to design the rest of the universe into its own image?
How does it learn from other initiatives? Hopefully computer graphics and exploration of
metaphors will give rise to new ways of working with, and through, categories -- working from
the whole down to the detail, without either constraining the whole or inhibiting the expression
of the detail. But again, how to prevent any such system from losing its significance? How
should such a system velop?
1. Frames that Work?
