Sooke City council

When having my weekly Sunday dinner with my aunt Jane and uncle Rick, an interesting conversation came up that shed some light on the town of Sooke. Since my uncle was a social planner in Vancouver for 30 years, before he retired in Sooke, he is very active in the community plan discussions and makes recommendation to the council on community issues.

Shortly after I first arrived here there was a municipal election. In the running were the regulars, the ones who have been active on council for years, and a mayor who actually didn’t win by majority (the other two options put together outnumbered her but separately did not). The mayor got voted in again and there was even some new councilors voted in. One in particular was a young woman, about my age. I remember seeing her campaign posters and wondering to myself what councilor life as a young person would be in Sooke. Being young and enthusiastic about new and fresh ideas seems to be a need in most communities I’ve lived in. Usually the city council is made up of the same people who have been doing it for years and there is rarely such a young person elected. Obviously the people of Sooke thought it was time for change. My uncle told me through his attendance at the meetings that this woman was one of the few on council who believed in putting the towns needs and comments on the table for serious consideration, and reacting in a proactive and community minded fashion.
As it turns out many opposed her thinking, to the point where she did not want to fight anymore and quit.What a sad disappointment that someone who is forward thinking, community minded, young and enthusiastic can be ousted so easily by those who prefer to do “business as usual”. I do not blame her, I admire her for her ability to get voted in and to seek change in a place she lives in. I am sure she will be a force to be reckoned with in the future - as will many of us in this program- and it is only a matter of time before our votes outnumber the ‘good old boys’ of days gone past.

Sustainable Revolution? Diffusion

The final criteria for a social revolution is diffusion. Diffusion is a continuation of critical mass that is able to go beyond the socioeconomic boundaries within which a catalyst for change was initiated. For example, after the success of industrialization in Europe, electricity, gasoline engines and factory production improvements were widely adopted by other nations. Even today many developing countries continue to chase the ideals put forward by the industrial revolution. In contrast, the sustainability revolution has failed to become a “pervasive mainstream phenomena”. Much of this can be attributed to the notion that this movement has not achieved genesis and critical mass, certain precursors to the final act of diffusion. Further, while there is resistance to such an idea within developed nations clinging to their way of life, there may be greater resistance by developing countries (i.e. China, India) attempting to have what Western society has attained. This form of negative feedback can stifle the momentum of any movement seeking broader appeal.

The genesis, critical mass and diffusion associated with the sustainability movement have not initiated the fundamental change and behavior characterized by revolutions. At best they are a backlash to some of the environmental, social and economic costs being experienced as a result of continuing industrialization. These costs include reduced quality of life, environmental degradation and commodity scarcity. Despite numerous examples of such costs, society has yet to be overwhelmed to a degree that would require a catalyst for significant change. The concept of a tragedy of the commons will continue to reinforce the self-serving interests of individuals. And the predominant market-economy will ensure that society continues to be ill-equipped to critically understand the need for change.

The fundamentals of the industrial revolution are just starting to be put into question. The measures discussed by Edwards all seek to repair a system that society ultimately wants to perpetuate rather than replace. Current attempts to change industrialization do not qualify as revolutionary, and perhaps not even as momentous. Rather they are measures of routine maintenance and re-balancing on a system that continues to be too compelling for society to seek change.

An Interesting article and interesting stuff to think about …..

Sustainable Revolution? Critical mass

The second criteria stated in the article was critical mass. Once there is a catalyst for change there needs to be support for that change in order for it to gain momentum, or critical mass. Going back to the industrial revolution as an example, the mass distribution of electrical power increased the efficiency of factory production. Improvements in the transportation sector, such as the steam engine and automobiles, allowed greater distribution of products and expansion of infrastructure. These actions were able to persuade society of the benefits of industrialization and this helped the revolution gain its momentum. Those caught up in the sheer potential or the competition to conform were easily persuaded while those who resisted were eventually forced to change. This was revolutionary because it fundamentally changed the way of life in Europe. In contrast, the sustainability movement has not been successful in persuading society to change. Society is protective of the lifestyle produced by the industrial revolution. Despite the personal computer and internet, the central ideas of this movement have not struck a chord with society. The value system, consciousness and world view remains focused on consumerism and personal gain, things that coincidentally were reinforced by the industrial revolution. The sustainability movement does not offer a viable replacement for this way of life, but rather a perceived reduction in quality, and these types of ideas lose steam quickly.

Whistle Bend Case study

What an awesome opportunity this was to see the type of community engagement that is happening in my own hometown. When we were searching for a case study I googled " Whitehorse community engagement" and was very surprised to find this case study. Not only is it actually happening (the development has been approved) but it is happening now. It is very inspiring to know that such form of public consultation are being conducted in the north. In some ways the Yukon is very behind the times as far as regulation and climate change issues go (ie: there are only 10 people in the Yukon signed up for the One million acts of green!) yet things are changing and people are getting involved, something that is not new for the Yukon. Yukon communities tend to be very open to community involvement - if you are willing the possibilities are endless.

I was also surprised when I asked about turnout numbers to these types of processes and our teacher responded that 70 people (that attended the Charette process for Whistle Bend) out of 24,000 is actually a very good turnout. And here I was thinking what a poor turnout our city had. I guess in some ways our little northern community is actually achieveing theiur goal of setting a Canadian standard for community engagement - who knew? I definitely did not know that about my community.
I can say that having taken these classes on sustainability and community relations have really educated me as to the processes that are out there and inspired me to become more active when I return to the Yukon.

Sustainability Revolution? Genesis

When reading an excerpt from the book Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a paradigm shift by A.R. Edwards I was intrigugued by the idea that the author thought we were in a Sustainability Revolution. He talks about the criteria for a social revolution to include having a genesis, a critical mass and diffusion.
For the first part, the genesis, it could be be defined in this context as a catalyst for significant change. For example, the industrial revolution was initiated when precious metals were brought back to Europe from the New World. This stimulated industrial development, accelerated trade and a new money economy. This showed the potential for a better way of life and an evolution in the existing value systems and consciousness. As a revolution, industrialization was an overwhelming idea that initially persuaded people to join and inevitably forced them to change. In contrast, the perceived genesis for the sustainability movement within the context of this book was a 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment. This conference introduced the concepts of sustainability and later the 1987 Brundtland Report defined sustainable development. However I do not think the genesis (as defined by the author) has been an effective catalyst for change. It has failed to create a pervasive and permanent shift in conscious and world view. Ultimately it has failed to inspire society to give up the way of life created by the industrial revolution. It does not provide the necessary incentives for society to change and does not give a sense of urgency. The industrial revolution was able to prove tangible benefits for society to change while the sustainability revolution seems to be percieved by society as a reduction in benefits.