Wednesday 24 June 2015

When is a root cause not a root cause?

For me one of the most fascinating aspects of systemic thinking is how it helps me to reflect on different issues that the media presents, and to reflect on how interconnected much of it is.

For example, I have just finished reading Robert and Edward Skidelsky's "How much is enough?", a thought-provoking read about how modern societies have moved away from people wanting just enough to give them 'a good life' to ones where people have an insatiable desire to acquire more and more, in the media- and advertising industry-given belief that this will make them happy. The Skidelsky's argue that this development has come as a result of the industrial revolution: mechanisation makes it possible to produce more and more, and in order to justify this production and ensure profit people need to have to consume more and more. Hence, in modern society we have completely lost the idea of being happy with 'just enough' and cannot see any alternatives to growth economies.

I then came across an article on the Guardian Online about child poverty. The article quoted the Conservative Party election manifesto as listing "… the root causes of poverty: entrenched worklessness, family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol dependency". It was the phrase 'root causes' which caught my eye: root causes being fundamental issues over which we have control but below which we cannot easily analyse any further. As a systemicist I could see a questionable boundary decision.

For example, to consider 'entrenched worklessness', the Skidelsky argument is that automation is leading to the mechanisation of more and more jobs in the middle of the employment market (for example as reported from Australia). People in the low-paid service sectors and higher paid senior management and executives are less affected at the moment, so those people who are being squeezed out of the middle are chasing the limited number of low paid, less skilled jobs. So maybe we should unpack the idea of 'entrenched worklessness' a little more and question the basis on which we are relentlessly automating the workplace.

Then the issue of 'problem debt'. Our society relies on people spending more and more in order to generate growth, and the only way in which this can be delivered is by encouraging household debt, so it is hardly any surprise that some of this debt becomes a problem. Again, is 'problem debt' a real root cause or should we probe further and question the morality of an economy which relies on credit?

As a systems thinker I would hope that our politicians reflect on the systemic nature of the problems that face modern society, and try to think of ways of dealing with real root causes. However, there are always elections coming and getting to grips with real problems and long-term solutions is just not a political priority.



Tuesday 16 June 2015

A systemic view on radicalisation

Last night I went to bed after watching the news, which covered the story of a 17-year-old boy from West Yorkshire who had become an Islamic State suicide bomber. When I woke up, the radio news was talking about how to stop young people becoming 'radicalised'.

Tragic personal stories and a worrying topic of our time. But what seems to not be discussed is why young people can become radicalised this way. The standard government message is that there are 'bad people' who are indoctrinating others, and by focusing the message on this the solution becomes how to stop these bad people.


But surely there is more to it than that? To help clear my thinking I quickly drew a rich picture. A few things start to appear. The conflict in Syria must appear quite exciting and attracting to people whose immediate future does not seem very enticing. This is one thing that the media sometimes discusses, but I also wondered about how shoot 'em up computer games may also contribute to this, by creating a blurred connection between the gameplay and reality. The sophistication of modern games really do create an almost real experience, and could well make people think that real conflict is similar.

Then we have the questioning of belonging to the United Kingdom, which must be experienced by some people within the ethnic minorities. The anti-Muslim rhetoric which has been going on since September 11, 2001 means that a whole generation is growing up conscious of this negative message. What allegiance might they feel to the United Kingdom? Britain's colonial activities in the Middle East, and our post-colonial involvement in both Iraq wars are also highly relevant.

And another strand relates to a story which appeared a few days ago. Apparently, now that university education is widespread, quality employers are resorting to the 'posh test' to distinguish between people: if you have the right accent and class background you have a much better chance of getting a good job. How alienating would that be, cutting across all ethnic distinctions and affecting everyone from the working classes. Perhaps this is why radicalisation is not confined to people from ethnic minorities.

I am sure that this quickly drawn rich picture could be elaborated. However, my quick analysis illustrates how the current debate about 'radicalisation' really needs to move on from convenient, simplistic analyses to something more sophisticated if politically difficult.

Friday 30 January 2015

"Bitter Lake" - a plea for more sophisticated television

A few nights ago I logged into BBC iPlayer order to watch the latest Adam Curtis documentary "Bitter Lake".

At about 2 hours 20 minutes it is a substantial piece of work, and Curtis decided that it should be only available on iPlayer because he did not want to have to fit it into a standard television-sized slot. The reason is that the documentary, while focusing on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the recent western involvement in Afghanistan, is more broadly a criticism about how politicians and the media simplify messages.

They do this for various reasons: because the world around us is complex and issues such as Islamic fundamentalism are happening because of many different issues, to obscure actions taken which have contributed to a current crisis, to make it possible to explain what is happening in a few minutes on a news broadcast, for example.

By taking such a long time to present the story Curtis is able to weave together a story which includes an ill-planned irrigation scheme in Helmand province which massively increased the local capacity for producing opium, American complicity with Saudi Arabia in guaranteeing oil supplies in exchange for ignoring what that country did with fundamentalist beliefs, the 2008 financial crisis, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the rise of Islamic State in Iraq and many others.

Giving such time makes it possible to explore the complexity which has led to the current crisis in the Middle East, and is quite different to the typical media narrative which is that Islamic fundamentalists are basically evil and that it is the duty of Westerners, as representatives of good, to ride in and destroy them.

Of course, that is the narrative structure of the typical western film, and Curtis makes the point that one of the key moments in the development of the simplification of history was the election of Ronald Reagan, a former actor in western action movies, as US president.

Sadly until we can as a world learn to get to grips with complexity and stop seeing the world as an action film we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past, over and over and over.