INFORMATION

For many years now, sociologists have been declaring that modernized societies have entered the “Information Age,” meaning that through new technologies as well as an accelerating expansion of experience and expertise, we have immediate access to a prodigious storehouse of knowledge. There are diverse interpretations of this development in civilization; some argue that the explosion of information will liberate us from political repression, old-fashioned educational models, and humanity’s general ignorance and prejudice. Other observers are much more cautious, if not worried, because they believe that the sheer quantity of information is eroding the quality (meaningfulness, moral orientation) of our shared knowledge. We may not have the capacity, or the time, or the inclination, to sift through the barrages of data that inundate us, leaving us as ignorant and prejudiced—and as subject to political manipulation—as ever, and maybe even more so than in times past.

While many Vermont Commons contributors are avid users and proponents of information technologies and social media, we are concerned about ways that powerful institutions—government, corporations, media, school systems, and universities—can manage information to promote conformity and complacency in the service of elites who run these systems. As these institutions have become ever larger, more centralized and pervasive, their power to shape public opinion and cultural norms has increased despite instant electronic access to the Internet and the world’s store of information. To take one example, in place of a buzzing multitude of newspapers representing diverse perspectives, we now have a handful of huge media corporations that control most of the print media the public reads, as well as the radio and television stations that provide the “news” available to the bulk of the public. Another example: the authority of local school boards has been usurped by federal and state bureaucracies enforcing their “standards” of learning. In significant ways knowledge itself is becoming more centrally managed even as it wildly expands.
The articles in this section address three quite distinct realms: professional journalism, social networking via the Internet, and education. While the specific problems of each area require appropriately focused solutions, they are all related to the larger question about who controls information. Again, Vermont Commons writers assert that under the corporate empire, control has been seized by elites for their own purposes, and they argue that more diverse and localized access to knowledge is essential for preserving a democratic society.

COMMUNITY

One theme that implicitly pervades the writings in Vermont Commons is the notion of community. Local systems and institutions are preferable because they are rooted in communities. Local economies support the cohesion and health of communities. Governance is democratic to the extent that it reflects the values and priorities of communities. What does this word mean and why is it so important?

The dominant ideology of contemporary politics celebrates the individual. “Liberty” means the citizen’s freedom from coercion or the consumer’s freedom to choose in the marketplace. These individual rights are (presumably) protected by the formal mechanisms of the powerful state. This theory downplays the role of intermediary associations—more intimate groups of people who feel a sense of belonging, loyalty, and mutual concern, people who share common interests and participate in common endeavors. When Vermont Commons authors write about “communities,” or “the commons” (a term embedded in the very name of the publication), they are emphasizing the neglected but vital importance of these communal identities and endeavors. They argue that individuals need something besides vast, formal institutions (elite governments, global corporations, impersonal medical and educational systems) to meet their most real needs, to nurture their sense of place, of meaning and identity. Wendell Berry’s numerous writings, to give one inspiring example, express this understanding that people must belong to “a place on earth,” to the land and its local culture, in order to fulfill their true callings. We can thrive only in the context of community.

To honor the human need for communal association is not “socialism” as that term is often used or wielded as an epithet. It is not the construction of another layer of rigid institutional control over economic or cultural life. Rather, it is the recognition that pure individualism or a conception of people as purely economic beings (i.e., consumers) leaves us in an existential and political void, without the cultural capital to withstand the concentration and abuse of power. It is the recognition that we do share essential resources—natural as well as cultural—which ought not be privatized or converted into commodities for sale. Our best interests, our highest purposes, are served by a balance of private rights and communal responsibilities. The rise of a global corporate empire has eroded this balance, and our task now is to restore it.

RESILIENCE

Contemporary economics and politics are concerned above all with growth. More wealth, bigger markets, more information, increased power of managerial control—these goals fuel the continuous expansion of the massive institutions of empire. As we have seen, the Vermont Commons critique of empire derives from both political and ecological considerations. Growth for its own sake weakens communities and local autonomy, and thus weakens democracy. And on a finite planet, relentless growth is a social and economic form of cancer that can end only by destroying its host organism—human civilization and thousands of other life forms on this planet. In our view, the aim of a well-functioning society and wise culture ought to be resilience—the ability to adapt harmoniously to changing environmental, economic, and social conditions—rather than growth.

Resilience is similar to the notion of “sustainability,” in that it intends to maintain the delicate balance between human activities and natural ecosystems for an indefinite, ongoing future. But the term “sustainable” has been co-opted by all sorts of industrial processes and development projects that purport to continue business as usual with just a bit of fine tuning. “Resilience” is a more comprehensive and serious commitment to maintain the full, vibrant health of communities and ecosystems. It requires more of us than buying “green” (or greenwashed) products from the existing industrial economy; it demands that we become more active, engaged, and conscientious participants in economic activity—that is, citizens of the larger ecological community rather than merely passive consumers. This is a significant cultural and moral shift from self-aggrandizement (limitless growth of personal wealth) toward a greater appreciation of balance and simplicity, of harmony with the natural world.

As the following articles indicate, the idea of resilience owes its rising influence to the Transition Town movement and its founder, permaculture expert Rob Hopkins. The approaching realities of peak oil and climate change have caused alert observers, like Hopkins, as well as Vermont’s own permaculture advocate, Ben Falk, to realize that in a post-fossil-fuel civilization, endless growth will no longer be possible. We will no longer be able to meet economic and social challenges by increasing industrial output or devising an endless array of new, energy-dependent technologies. This new era will demand flexible adaptation to ecological and geographical limits. Communities will need to live far more lightly and intelligently on the land, and aim to maximize well-being rather than financial profits alone. As we are already finding in developed nations, industrial-economy “jobs” begin to disappear when the limits to growth begin to be felt. Resilience, then, involves “re-skilling”—learning trades and crafts that enable us to live lightly and intelligently, using resources carefully and wisely.