What do you think?
Rate this book
Juntos: Os rituais, os prazeres e a política da cooperação
O autor explora como podemos aprender a cooperar nas culturas intensamente competitivas e egoístas em que vivemos atualmente. Dividido em três partes, Juntos aborda a natureza do conceito de cooperação, e explica por que este perdeu sua força e como poderia ser retomado. Sennett adverte que devemos aprender a arte da cooperação se quisermos que a nossa complexa sociedade prospere, e nos assegura que somos capazes disso.
430 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 15, 2011
127 people are currently reading
1819 people want to read
About the author
Richard Sennett
72 books551 followersRichard Sennett has explored how individuals and groups make social and cultural sense of material facts -- about the cities in which they live and about the labour they do. He focuses on how people can become competent interpreters of their own experience, despite the obstacles society may put in their way. His research entails ethnography, history, and social theory. As a social analyst, Mr. Sennett continues the pragmatist tradition begun by William James and John Dewey.
His first book, The Uses of Disorder, [1970] looked at how personal identity takes form in the modern city. He then studied how working-class identities are shaped in modern society, in The Hidden Injuries of Class, written with Jonathan Cobb. [1972] A study of the public realm of cities, The Fall of Public Man, appeared in 1977; at the end of this decade of writing, Mr. Sennett sought to account the philosophic implications of this work in Authority [1980].
At this point he took a break from sociology, composing three novels: The Frog who Dared to Croak [1982], An Evening of Brahms [1984] and Palais Royal [1987]. He then returned to urban studies with two books, The Conscience of the Eye, [1990], a work focusing on urban design, and Flesh and Stone [1992], a general historical study of how bodily experience has been shaped by the evolution of cities.
In the mid 1990s, as the work-world of modern capitalism began to alter quickly and radically, Mr. Sennett began a project charting its personal consequences for workers, a project which has carried him up to the present day. The first of these studies, The Corrosion of Character, [1998] is an ethnographic account of how middle-level employees make sense of the “new economy.” The second in the series, Respect in a World of Inequality, [2002} charts the effects of new ways of working on the welfare state; a third, The Culture of the New Capitalism, [2006] provides an over-view of change. Most recently, Mr. Sennett has explored more positive aspects of labor in The Craftsman [2008], and in Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation [2012].
His first book, The Uses of Disorder, [1970] looked at how personal identity takes form in the modern city. He then studied how working-class identities are shaped in modern society, in The Hidden Injuries of Class, written with Jonathan Cobb. [1972] A study of the public realm of cities, The Fall of Public Man, appeared in 1977; at the end of this decade of writing, Mr. Sennett sought to account the philosophic implications of this work in Authority [1980].
At this point he took a break from sociology, composing three novels: The Frog who Dared to Croak [1982], An Evening of Brahms [1984] and Palais Royal [1987]. He then returned to urban studies with two books, The Conscience of the Eye, [1990], a work focusing on urban design, and Flesh and Stone [1992], a general historical study of how bodily experience has been shaped by the evolution of cities.
In the mid 1990s, as the work-world of modern capitalism began to alter quickly and radically, Mr. Sennett began a project charting its personal consequences for workers, a project which has carried him up to the present day. The first of these studies, The Corrosion of Character, [1998] is an ethnographic account of how middle-level employees make sense of the “new economy.” The second in the series, Respect in a World of Inequality, [2002} charts the effects of new ways of working on the welfare state; a third, The Culture of the New Capitalism, [2006] provides an over-view of change. Most recently, Mr. Sennett has explored more positive aspects of labor in The Craftsman [2008], and in Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation [2012].
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
March 26, 2017
I want to engage with some of the ideas in this book, rather than review it, per se. As humans we are the outcome of a kind of struggle of opposites. We are obviously highly social animals – very few of us go off and live on top of a mountain, our language only makes sense if we can speak it to other people, most of what we do can only be done because we live in a society of interconnected others. We are condemned to be ‘together’, if you like. And this is increasingly the case in the cities most of us live in where so many of us from different background are smashed together.
But the other side of that is the idea that we are individuals and that we have a desire to express ourselves as individuals. This author is trying to unpack some of the current problems associated with our being ‘together’ – not least in the sense of what it means to live in a community and given that we do live in communities, how are we responsible to others?
And this guy is from the left and quite proud of that fact. So, in large part he wants to see if there are ways to encourage us to improve the benefits available for everyone living in communities – and not just, as now, those at the very top at the expense of everyone else.
Over time there have been a couple of answers to how we might address this problem. One answer could be said to come from Marx – but I want to be more general than that, and say that it is the ‘let’s fix this politically’ solution. Marx is useful here as that is pretty much what he did say. The system is increasingly finding ways to expropriate the poor, the poor create the wealth of society and yet don’t get to share in its benefits, at best the poor often only get to understand they should join together to protect their own interests, but they rarely get to the point where they see joining together as being a way to overthrow the existing order – when, in fact, that over-throw is what is needed, so, you need some form of political organisation (directing orders from above) to bring about what seems to be ‘objectively necessary’ anyway.
That is one stream of thought, and although Sennett uses Marx as a way to make this perspective clear, really, all political parties on the left (even ones not particularly of the left like The Democrats in the US or the Labor Party in Australia) were set up because political power was understood as the best and easiest means to effect change in society.
Now, the other stream of thought discussed here could be called ‘community organising’. Here the idea is that political power is too much about compromise. What happens is that parties either come to power and ‘forget’ what they set out to do (often due to ‘pragmatic’ realisations about what can and can’t be achieved) or they crash and burn in trying to overturn the existing order when they don’t have the full support of the people they say they are seeking to represent. This path has proven problematic throughout the last 150 odd years.
The other way is to build community from the ground up, rather than from the sky down. This seems to make more sense – if ‘unity is strength’ then surely you need to build that unity with and between real people. If you want people to know there is a better way to live, then getting them to practice that way now is better than hoping that once you have wrought some fundamental change in society that that alone will suddenly bring about a better existence.
The second way seems so much more creative and inspiring. As Sennett says, this is how Obama and Hillary Clinton both learnt their politics – as ‘community organisers’ – and yet, in both cases they ended up moving on to ‘politics’ as a better solution.
Like all of these things, perhaps an ‘either/or’ position is the least defensible. But I’m not going to say that other cliché – the ‘both/and’ – is the answer. The problem here is that it does seem at the moment that we are at a turning point in human history. Now, look, I understand that every era sees itself at just such a turning point – but this one seems more dire than is generally the case. There are so many threats to our existence at the moment – climate change, nuclear weapons, growing inequalities, social divisions that are ripping us apart rather than bringing us together (think of the Black Lives Matter protests as a case in point) – and these problems are generally caused or made worse by policy positions that governments, or society more generally, hold. There is a real sense that slowly building ‘a movement’ from the bottom that will eventually change the way people think about these things and build an all-convincing argument for change, would really be nice, but that we just don’t have the time. And anyway, the fact the people in power currently own the means of propaganda makes all these changes that much less likely anyway.
That said, grand and all-encompassing political movements haven’t proven to be terribly effective at bringing about fundamental change either. If anything, the smell of death coming from such grand solutions is enough to put anyone off considering them as an alternative at all.
So, that seems to imply that ground up is the only option available.
Except, most of our problems seem to have moved to a global sphere and as such it is hard to see how they can be answered at a local community level. How does, for instance, the local community end the threat of nuclear war, the fact they have no money to invest in their community because multinational corporations refuse to pay taxes? How will community organising address those issues?
I want to stress, I really don’t feel I have any answers to any of these questions. I feel I could make a case for either side and even to make a case against both sides. And I also admit that this is all symptomatic of my overall pessimism – that those who benefit most from the system as it exists at the moment simply have all of the power and it isn’t clear what path everyone else can take that will not be short lived and ultimately ineffective.
Nonetheless, I do think that trying to work out what it means to be ‘together’ – in all of the senses of that word as discussed in this book – is an important way to start. We too often consider the society that we live in as if it was the same as the forest that a bear lives in – natural and inevitable and not really something we have any choices about. Except, the big difference is that we have made our concrete forest and so we ought to be able to change the rules so as to make that forest work for more people than it currently does. How we might go about doing that needs to answer the question, how are we going to be together? And this book gives lots of interesting answers to what being together means.
But the other side of that is the idea that we are individuals and that we have a desire to express ourselves as individuals. This author is trying to unpack some of the current problems associated with our being ‘together’ – not least in the sense of what it means to live in a community and given that we do live in communities, how are we responsible to others?
And this guy is from the left and quite proud of that fact. So, in large part he wants to see if there are ways to encourage us to improve the benefits available for everyone living in communities – and not just, as now, those at the very top at the expense of everyone else.
Over time there have been a couple of answers to how we might address this problem. One answer could be said to come from Marx – but I want to be more general than that, and say that it is the ‘let’s fix this politically’ solution. Marx is useful here as that is pretty much what he did say. The system is increasingly finding ways to expropriate the poor, the poor create the wealth of society and yet don’t get to share in its benefits, at best the poor often only get to understand they should join together to protect their own interests, but they rarely get to the point where they see joining together as being a way to overthrow the existing order – when, in fact, that over-throw is what is needed, so, you need some form of political organisation (directing orders from above) to bring about what seems to be ‘objectively necessary’ anyway.
That is one stream of thought, and although Sennett uses Marx as a way to make this perspective clear, really, all political parties on the left (even ones not particularly of the left like The Democrats in the US or the Labor Party in Australia) were set up because political power was understood as the best and easiest means to effect change in society.
Now, the other stream of thought discussed here could be called ‘community organising’. Here the idea is that political power is too much about compromise. What happens is that parties either come to power and ‘forget’ what they set out to do (often due to ‘pragmatic’ realisations about what can and can’t be achieved) or they crash and burn in trying to overturn the existing order when they don’t have the full support of the people they say they are seeking to represent. This path has proven problematic throughout the last 150 odd years.
The other way is to build community from the ground up, rather than from the sky down. This seems to make more sense – if ‘unity is strength’ then surely you need to build that unity with and between real people. If you want people to know there is a better way to live, then getting them to practice that way now is better than hoping that once you have wrought some fundamental change in society that that alone will suddenly bring about a better existence.
The second way seems so much more creative and inspiring. As Sennett says, this is how Obama and Hillary Clinton both learnt their politics – as ‘community organisers’ – and yet, in both cases they ended up moving on to ‘politics’ as a better solution.
Like all of these things, perhaps an ‘either/or’ position is the least defensible. But I’m not going to say that other cliché – the ‘both/and’ – is the answer. The problem here is that it does seem at the moment that we are at a turning point in human history. Now, look, I understand that every era sees itself at just such a turning point – but this one seems more dire than is generally the case. There are so many threats to our existence at the moment – climate change, nuclear weapons, growing inequalities, social divisions that are ripping us apart rather than bringing us together (think of the Black Lives Matter protests as a case in point) – and these problems are generally caused or made worse by policy positions that governments, or society more generally, hold. There is a real sense that slowly building ‘a movement’ from the bottom that will eventually change the way people think about these things and build an all-convincing argument for change, would really be nice, but that we just don’t have the time. And anyway, the fact the people in power currently own the means of propaganda makes all these changes that much less likely anyway.
That said, grand and all-encompassing political movements haven’t proven to be terribly effective at bringing about fundamental change either. If anything, the smell of death coming from such grand solutions is enough to put anyone off considering them as an alternative at all.
So, that seems to imply that ground up is the only option available.
Except, most of our problems seem to have moved to a global sphere and as such it is hard to see how they can be answered at a local community level. How does, for instance, the local community end the threat of nuclear war, the fact they have no money to invest in their community because multinational corporations refuse to pay taxes? How will community organising address those issues?
I want to stress, I really don’t feel I have any answers to any of these questions. I feel I could make a case for either side and even to make a case against both sides. And I also admit that this is all symptomatic of my overall pessimism – that those who benefit most from the system as it exists at the moment simply have all of the power and it isn’t clear what path everyone else can take that will not be short lived and ultimately ineffective.
Nonetheless, I do think that trying to work out what it means to be ‘together’ – in all of the senses of that word as discussed in this book – is an important way to start. We too often consider the society that we live in as if it was the same as the forest that a bear lives in – natural and inevitable and not really something we have any choices about. Except, the big difference is that we have made our concrete forest and so we ought to be able to change the rules so as to make that forest work for more people than it currently does. How we might go about doing that needs to answer the question, how are we going to be together? And this book gives lots of interesting answers to what being together means.
May 27, 2019
You always learn something from a Richard Sennett book, even if it's entirely unrelated to the ostensible subject of the work. In this case, I learned about Satow's Diplomatic Practice, which is mentioned in passing. As for the ostensible subject, I have to say that this book should really be called "Sennett's Reflections, Anecdotes, and Recollections on the Subject of Co-operation," since this book is little more than an excuse for tangential discussions based on Sennett's own experiences. There was no mention, for instance, of Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, one of the most central, indeed iconic pieces on the problem of co-operation, or of Mancur Olson's "The Logic of Collective Action," a classic in the field. The recently departed Elinor Ostrom even received a Nobel Prize for her work exploring how individuals, communities, institutions, and groups co-operate horizontally to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Mention of her there is none. Instead, we get Sennett's meandering, page-filling divagations the point of which is often very hard to determine. Erudite he undoubtedly is, but a decent editor would have halved the length of this book.
December 29, 2020
Richard Sennett is aiming high with this book. He posits in the Introduction that it is the middle book of a trilogy, with the first being his earlier published book "The Craftsman". His trilogy is intended to be nothing less than a comprehensive theory about "the skills people need to sustain everyday life". It may be that he hits the target he aims at, but I'm not entirely certain yet. This is the sort of book one has to digest for some time before knowing what it has and has not accomplished. Writing this review is probably part of my process of doing that.
The basic thesis, is that cooperation is not best thought of as a strategy, but rather more like a skill. You may not be good at cooperating, even though you want to, and someone else may be very good at cooperating, even though they are less motivated to do so than you are (in a particular situation). You may have intended to cooperate, but if you're not good at it, that may not be enough. On the other hand, someone who is good at it will naturally do it more often, simply because it is (now) easy for them to do it. Given that cooperating is a skill, it follows that, like language and math and athletics, you need to practice it in order to master it. And, given that, one can ask how often our culture gives one the opportunity to acquire those skills. Clearly, Sennett is worried that the answer is "not enough".
Some of this is similar to the now widely shared concern that our society has lost the level of cooperation in between "nation" and "family". See the books "Bowling Alone" and "The Big Sort". Given the scarcity of interaction with neighbors (with whom one rarely has any need to do anything together, anyway), the fleeting nature of employment, and the increasingly isolated nature of much of our work, many of the opportunities given to people 100 years ago to learn the skills of cooperation are now gone.
Inevitably, there is some discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy In America". You know, I read that like 30 years ago, and I am wondering now if it is time for me to be rereading it. I think I recall what it said, but after that long who knows. According to Sennett (and my memory) though, it said Americans (in the early 19th century) were uniquely good at spontaneously forming volunteer organizations to do things, including tackling common problems. It does not necessarily appear that this is true anymore, and it is natural to ask why not.
Sennett seems to believe that the sort of team labor which was once routinely done, as epitomized by the wonderful picture on the book's cover of craftsmen working on a staircase, was the manner in which the skills of cooperation were honed. A few years before this book's 2012 publication, he did a great deal of interviewing of workers (and former workers) in the financial industry after the 2008 Fiscal Crisis, and seems to draw from this experience the conclusion that modern workplaces and manners of employment are lacking in their ability to hone cooperation by a team.
There is also an exploration in the middle about the transition of human society from honor to diplomacy, and all that entailed. Much of feudal society was based on honor, with an emphasis on, for example, fulfilling the various vows of fealty. Honesty, doing what you said you would do, is primary. With the arrival of larger city-states in Renaissance Europe (and eventually elsewhere), this became less important, and not being entirely forthright became more important. Tact and diplomacy, necessary for humans to cooperate on a larger scale, requires occasionally saying something less than the full and unvarnished truth. This is something which adolescents in particular often have a hard time understanding, and every generation there is a movement of artists or political radicals who wish to sweep aside stodgy social convention in favor of total and unrestrained expression in all things; it inevitably falls apart in mutual recriminations and a lot of drama. This is something which it takes time to realize is important, and after that it takes time to become good at.
There is also a great deal of discussion about how the relationship between leaders and those being led, can develop (or fail to). Sennett believes that periodic crises, and how leaders (and others) behave during those crises, has a big part in determining how much trust they have in one another. This, in turn, impacts how well they can cooperate. It suggests that, like Nassim Taleb's concept of "antifragility", the human ability to cooperate is best served by more frequent crises of moderate scale, rather than infrequent crises of larger scale. Much of how our society has come to work in the last generation or two, is based on trying to make crises as infrequent as possible, and this raises the possibility that by that very fact it makes our society less well able to handle them when they do occur.
Does it all add up to a full theory of how cooperation works? I'm not sure. Sennett covers a lot of ground, and much of it rings true to me, but I feel like I was provided with quality lumber and a toolbox rather than a piece of furniture, which I will have to assemble in my mind over time. It is probably not the worst way to learn something, since the effort of assembly makes the end result more likely to be valued. I will have to consider this for some time.
The basic thesis, is that cooperation is not best thought of as a strategy, but rather more like a skill. You may not be good at cooperating, even though you want to, and someone else may be very good at cooperating, even though they are less motivated to do so than you are (in a particular situation). You may have intended to cooperate, but if you're not good at it, that may not be enough. On the other hand, someone who is good at it will naturally do it more often, simply because it is (now) easy for them to do it. Given that cooperating is a skill, it follows that, like language and math and athletics, you need to practice it in order to master it. And, given that, one can ask how often our culture gives one the opportunity to acquire those skills. Clearly, Sennett is worried that the answer is "not enough".
Some of this is similar to the now widely shared concern that our society has lost the level of cooperation in between "nation" and "family". See the books "Bowling Alone" and "The Big Sort". Given the scarcity of interaction with neighbors (with whom one rarely has any need to do anything together, anyway), the fleeting nature of employment, and the increasingly isolated nature of much of our work, many of the opportunities given to people 100 years ago to learn the skills of cooperation are now gone.
Inevitably, there is some discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy In America". You know, I read that like 30 years ago, and I am wondering now if it is time for me to be rereading it. I think I recall what it said, but after that long who knows. According to Sennett (and my memory) though, it said Americans (in the early 19th century) were uniquely good at spontaneously forming volunteer organizations to do things, including tackling common problems. It does not necessarily appear that this is true anymore, and it is natural to ask why not.
Sennett seems to believe that the sort of team labor which was once routinely done, as epitomized by the wonderful picture on the book's cover of craftsmen working on a staircase, was the manner in which the skills of cooperation were honed. A few years before this book's 2012 publication, he did a great deal of interviewing of workers (and former workers) in the financial industry after the 2008 Fiscal Crisis, and seems to draw from this experience the conclusion that modern workplaces and manners of employment are lacking in their ability to hone cooperation by a team.
There is also an exploration in the middle about the transition of human society from honor to diplomacy, and all that entailed. Much of feudal society was based on honor, with an emphasis on, for example, fulfilling the various vows of fealty. Honesty, doing what you said you would do, is primary. With the arrival of larger city-states in Renaissance Europe (and eventually elsewhere), this became less important, and not being entirely forthright became more important. Tact and diplomacy, necessary for humans to cooperate on a larger scale, requires occasionally saying something less than the full and unvarnished truth. This is something which adolescents in particular often have a hard time understanding, and every generation there is a movement of artists or political radicals who wish to sweep aside stodgy social convention in favor of total and unrestrained expression in all things; it inevitably falls apart in mutual recriminations and a lot of drama. This is something which it takes time to realize is important, and after that it takes time to become good at.
There is also a great deal of discussion about how the relationship between leaders and those being led, can develop (or fail to). Sennett believes that periodic crises, and how leaders (and others) behave during those crises, has a big part in determining how much trust they have in one another. This, in turn, impacts how well they can cooperate. It suggests that, like Nassim Taleb's concept of "antifragility", the human ability to cooperate is best served by more frequent crises of moderate scale, rather than infrequent crises of larger scale. Much of how our society has come to work in the last generation or two, is based on trying to make crises as infrequent as possible, and this raises the possibility that by that very fact it makes our society less well able to handle them when they do occur.
Does it all add up to a full theory of how cooperation works? I'm not sure. Sennett covers a lot of ground, and much of it rings true to me, but I feel like I was provided with quality lumber and a toolbox rather than a piece of furniture, which I will have to assemble in my mind over time. It is probably not the worst way to learn something, since the effort of assembly makes the end result more likely to be valued. I will have to consider this for some time.
September 22, 2017
This is a study of cooperation by Richard Sennett. Sennett is one of the best social theorists writing today and this study is a follow-up to his work on craftsmen and craft organization. This is a theory driven examination of what cooperation is, what the state of cooperation is in modern society, and what can be done about it. Unlike a more straightforward history, Sennett has a definite argument to make. The book takes a "deep dive" into the different meanings of cooperation in social behavior. There are different ways to think about cooperation -- consensus, zero-sum, competitive, winner-take-all -- and the most important ones, in which parties need to cooperate even though they do not agree on goals and have different rewards -- are complex and hard to bring about in many social settings. There are different ways to discuss with others while trying to cooperate - dialogue versus dialectic. Which type you choose depends on which type of cooperation you wish to achieve. Sennett then notes a modern tendency away from cooperation and towards autonomous action that is almost opposed to cooperation on principle - radical and individualistic self-interest seeking behavior over short term time frames. Sennett's final section of the book is to present some approaches for rebuilding cooperation in modern life. His model, as with his prior book, is that of craft organization and craftsmanship. This is a central theme in his work, to look at the craftsman as an essentially different base form of social organization, especially in work organizations, that is distinguished from traditional approaches to organization based on the division of labor, such as one finds in Adam Smith. Craft organization is more supportive of human values and less conducive to isolation and alienation and craft approaches can help to rest abolish cooperation among parties who strongly differ and disagree.
This book provides a series of general and abstract arguments. Sennett presents his thinking clearly, however, it is very rich thinking and readers will need to consider these arguments carefully. There is much to consider and much insight in this work. Sennett is a wonderful writer - which is very unusual in social theory, where pay seems to be determined by the average number of syllables employed. Sennett is also extremely well read and thoughtful and he illustrates his arguments with lots of examples. Something that struck me about this is how broadly applicable these ideas of cooperation can be. Sennett is interested in cooperation in the context of political and social action - considering the differences between top down Union organizing and bottom up community organizing. His concluding chapter discusses similar ideas in the context of his history with community organizations in Chicago and the differences between Catholic social action organizations and the experiences in a kibbutz. But these ideas can be applied to organizations and groups very far afield from these. These same issues come up in studies of work organizations or of the relationship between local branches and national professional service firms, such as in real estate or finance.
If the reader has not familiarized themselves with Sennett's craft arguments, the book could come across as assuming a lot that was detailed in earlier books and articles. This is not excessive, however, and the book is very accessible and well worth working through.
This book provides a series of general and abstract arguments. Sennett presents his thinking clearly, however, it is very rich thinking and readers will need to consider these arguments carefully. There is much to consider and much insight in this work. Sennett is a wonderful writer - which is very unusual in social theory, where pay seems to be determined by the average number of syllables employed. Sennett is also extremely well read and thoughtful and he illustrates his arguments with lots of examples. Something that struck me about this is how broadly applicable these ideas of cooperation can be. Sennett is interested in cooperation in the context of political and social action - considering the differences between top down Union organizing and bottom up community organizing. His concluding chapter discusses similar ideas in the context of his history with community organizations in Chicago and the differences between Catholic social action organizations and the experiences in a kibbutz. But these ideas can be applied to organizations and groups very far afield from these. These same issues come up in studies of work organizations or of the relationship between local branches and national professional service firms, such as in real estate or finance.
If the reader has not familiarized themselves with Sennett's craft arguments, the book could come across as assuming a lot that was detailed in earlier books and articles. This is not excessive, however, and the book is very accessible and well worth working through.
June 28, 2023
Moments of crisis reveal the fragility of formal organization and the strength of informal collaboration
As social pack animals, humans naturally want to live and work together to get important shit done.
Sennett’s main point here, made clear throughout with field study anecdotes and references to the work of great reformers and community organisers, and summed up in his exegesis, is that we really do not and cannot know what’s going on in the minds of others. Nevertheless, we should not allow the limitations of the weak forms of mutual understanding, of which we are all capable, to keep us from engaging with strangers. It’s abundantly worth it—and the only way we can get big, important shit done.
We don’t need to be unified, only to respect our fellow humans’ dignity and autonomy. Cooperation over solidarity.
As social pack animals, humans naturally want to live and work together to get important shit done.
Sennett’s main point here, made clear throughout with field study anecdotes and references to the work of great reformers and community organisers, and summed up in his exegesis, is that we really do not and cannot know what’s going on in the minds of others. Nevertheless, we should not allow the limitations of the weak forms of mutual understanding, of which we are all capable, to keep us from engaging with strangers. It’s abundantly worth it—and the only way we can get big, important shit done.
We don’t need to be unified, only to respect our fellow humans’ dignity and autonomy. Cooperation over solidarity.
February 10, 2016
BERABER-İşbirliği Ritüelleri, Zevkleri ve Politikası-
-ABD aşırı derecede KABİLE toplumu haline gelmiştir ve "BİZE-KARŞI-ONLAR" psikolojisi her şeyi ele geçirmektedir. "Bize-karşı-onlar" ilkel dürtüsü, kabilenin devamlılığını sağlar. KENT ise, FARKLI OLANLARIN, ZAHMET GEREKTİREN ve DİYALOĞA DAYALI İŞBİRLİĞİ ile devam edebilecek bir düzenektir; stereotipiyi taşımaz (Aristoteles).
-Günümüzde zenginler ile diğerleri arasındaki GELİR UÇURUMU giderek büyüyerek sosyal mesafelerin de gerilmesine yol açmakta, ticarette olduğu gibi insan ilişkilerinde ve çalışılan işte KISA VADELİLİK ve yüzeysellik egemen olmaktadır. Çalışma alanlarında, yöneticiler tarafından, ekip halinde çalışma süreleri 9-10 AY ile kısıtlanarak insanların birbirlerine alışmaları önlenmekte ve bölümler arası DİYALOG MİNİMALİZE edilerek, birinin diğeri için depo gibi bilgi saklayana (SİLO ETKİSİ) dönüşmesi, kendisini ilgilendirmeyen hiçbir şeyle ilgilenmemesi sağlanmaktadır. Silo etkisi, işbirliğinden ve farklı olandan uzak durmayı, her şeyi bilindik/tanıdık HOMOJENLİĞE/AYNILIĞA indirgemeyi öne çıkarmaktadır. İşbirliğinin gerektirdiği vasıf ise, MAKİNALARIN vasıfları devralması ile azalmaktadır.
-Yeni bir UNICEF çalışması, gelir uçurumu arttıkça çocukların uğradığı şiddetin ve çocuklar arası ŞİDDETİN ARTTIĞINI, işbirliğinin ise azaldığını göstermiştir. Aynı çalışmada, çocuk ve gençlerin, sahip olmadıkları şeylere İHTİYAÇLARI OLDUKLARINA (tüketim nesnelerine sahip olmama hali, medya ve reklam sektörünce aşağılanma nedenine dönüştü); kendileriyle ilgili bir şeylerin ters gitmesi halinde ise DİKKAT EKSİKLİĞİ-HİPERAKTİVİTE veya DEPRESYON teşhisiyle ilaç kullanmaları gerektiğine İKNA EDİLDİKLERİ ortaya konmuştur. Ayrıca, çocukların ekrandaki insanlara canlı gördüklerinden daha fazla inandıkları anlaşılmıştır.
-Yapısal/ekonomik eşitsizlikler ve yeni iş gücü formları nedeniyle ZAYIFLAYAN İŞBİRLİĞİ, koşullarla baş edemeyen insanın GERİ ÇEKİLMESİNE ve İŞBİRLİĞİ YAPMAYAN KENDİLİK haline gelmesine neden olmuştur. Geri çekilme, YALNIZLIĞA ve onun devamında KÖRLÜKLE birlikte gelen NARSİSİZME yol açmaktadır. Kişi, başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla kendisinin bastırıldığını düşünür ve “NE YAPIYORUM”un sorumluğunu almak yerine, “NE HİSSEDİYORUM”un kolaycılığına kaçarak, eylemi değersizleştirir. Narsisizm, BAŞKALARINA İLGİSİZLİK ve GÖNÜLLÜ İNZİVA ile insanı KAYGIDAN KAÇIRAN ve HİSSİZLEŞTİREN bir kabuktur. Narsisist, toplum arasına karışır ama GÖRMEZ, insanlara dokunur ama HİSSETMEZ. Narsisizmin yanı sıra, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü, dünyada DEPRESYON SALGININ var olduğunu (her 4 insandan 1’inde) ve her 7 insandan 1’inin ilaç kullandığını bildirmiştir.
-“ZAMANSIZ ZAMAN” diye adlandırılan bilgisayar çağında, işgücünün rastlantısallığı, geçiciliği ve proje bazlı oluşu hüküm sürmekte, yeni üniversite mezunlarının iş yaşamları boyunca 3 KEZ temel yetenek/teknik, ortalama 12 KEZ de iş değiştirmek zorunda kalacakları öngörülmektedir.
-Çocukların çalışma hayatlarında varabileceği gelir grubu dilimi, çok büyük oranda anne-babalarınınkine eşdeğer kalmaya mahkûm hale gelmiştir. Kazanan her şeyi alır mantığındaki kapitalist, en yırtıcı hayvana dönüşmektedir. Farklı olana karşı kış uykusuna yatma, tek başına bowling oynama, internetten tıklayarak eyleme, çok yere üyelik ama çok azına aktif katılma, işbirliğine yanaşmayan KİNİZM TOPLUMUnun ortak özellikleri olarak yaşanmaya başlamıştır.
-Genel anlamda, yöneticiler daha iyi olanın üste çıktıklarına inanırlar. Londra’daki “Chartered Management Institute”ün bir çalışmasında, çalışanların %50’si mevcut yöneticilerden daha iyi yönetebileceklerini, %49’u daha iyi yöneticinin gelmesi halinde maaşının azalmasına razı olacağını, %47’si ise kötü yöneticiler nedeniyle işlerinden ayrıldıklarını belirtmiştir. En büyük ortak görüş, YÖNETİCİLERİN ALTLARINDAKİ İNSANLARIN GÖRÜŞLERİNİ ALMAKTAN UZAK DURUP, AKTİF BİLGİDEN MAHRUM OLDUKLARI şeklindedir.
-Global çalışma-yaşama tarzı, “hep başka yerde olan” ve “küresel lüksün donattığı bir kozanın içinde yaşayan” YÖNETİCİLERİN, geçmişte hayır kurumu, hastane ve sanat organizasyonu yönetimlerindeki görevlerini tasfiye etmelerine yol açmış, başkalarına ilişkin sorumluluktan vazgeçmelerini kolaylaştırmıştır ("Wall Street’te kimse birbirinin elini tutamaz" deyişi).
-İŞBİRLİĞİ, insanlaşmanın öncülüdür ve tecritte birey gelişemez. İnsanın kendisini fark etmesi ve bireyleşmesi, deney yapmayı ve diğerleriyle iletişimi (diğerlerine dikkat/özen ve cevap verebilirlik) gerektirir.
Sahne sanatlarıyla uğraşanlar, başkalarına olan ihtiyacın şaşırtıcı düzeyde olduğunu, tek başına yapılan çalışmaların toplu prova yani EGO YIKICI SANAT sayesinde terbiye edildiğini bilir.
ARILAR ve KARINCALAR ile zirveye ulaşan İŞBİRLİĞİ AKLI, tek arı veya tek karıncada asla bulunmayan, birlikte iken işleyen, yaşamı güvenceye almak için işleyen bir çarktır ve bireylerden kaynaklanan eksiklikleri kompanze eder. Aksayan bireylerin görevlerini üstlenmek üzere genetik kodları mevcuttur ve işbirlikleri fabrika mekanikliğinde olmayıp, çevresel değişikliklere cevaben yeniden ve yeniden kurulur.
-Almanca BİLDUNG kelimesi, dünyadaki konumunu, diğerleriyle olan ilişkilerdeki yerine bakarak öğrenmek ve kurmak anlamında kullanılır ve toplumsallığı tanımlayan en güzel kelimelerden biridir. Bu kavramın önemli yansımalarından biri, 18.yy.da Alman kafelerinde yaygınlaşan, hayatın zorluklarını birlikte düşünüp ortaklaşmak için aylık okuma grupları vasıtasıyla sosyal sınıflar arasında gerçekleşen buluşmalardır.
-Çin’de uzak akrabalık ve tanıdıklık bağları üzerinden işleyen kredi sistemi olan GUANXİ, söz-şeref anlayışı temelindedir ve resmi sistemdeki çatlakların yaratacağı çalkantıların aşılmasında halen çok işe yaramaktadır.
-EKRAN SEVDALISI gençlerin KONGRE KATILIMCILIĞI ve BERABER YEME-İÇME-EĞLENME konularındaki HEVESLERİ, resmi olmayan değiş tokuşların, işbirliğinin çekiciliğine örnek olabilir.
Facebook, Twitter, paylaşım siteleri ve bloglar, "SIKIŞTIRILMIŞ İLETİŞİMLER" olup, "ORADAYIM" ve "ORADA OL" anlamı taşırlar; kendileriyle dolu ve fark edilmek için bağıran milyonlarca insanı gündeme getirirler. Öylesine etkili olmaya başlamışlardır ki on-line hastalık paylaşım sitelerinin, yüz yüze görüşmelerden daha etkili olduğu bir çalışmada gösterilmiştir. Hedef-Sonuç odaklı olduklarında bu şekilde fayda sağlayabilen bu internet alışverişlerinin, basit bilgi paylaşımlarıyla ifadeyi eksilterek insanlar arası anlayışı azalttıkları ise ortaya konmuş bir gerçekliktir. Asla ilişki olmayan ve ilişki için ARAÇ olan Facebook-Twitter’da insanların çekiciliği bağlantı sayıları ile tanımlanmakta ve bu aritmetik, ayrımcılık ve dışlamayı ortaya çıkmaktadır. Çocuk ve genç için toplumsal ilişkiler artan şekilde on-line ve teatral olarak sürdürülmekte ve gerçek sosyallik etkileşimleri azalmaktadır (USA-UK’de Avrupa’dan daha da fazla).
-Konuşma ve eylemlilikte DİYALEKTİK yöntem (tez-antitez-sentez) sık kullanılan yöntem olup, bugün için daha çok ihtiyacımız olan ise karşıyı daha iyi anlamaya yönelik DİYALOJİK yöntemdir. Bu yöntemde, söylenmeyen ama İMA EDİLENLERE dikkat artırılarak (T.Zeldin), GERÇEK NİYET anlaşılmaya, geçişlere/kavramaya/alışmaya zemin oluşturacak gri zonlar yakalanmaya çalışılır. BELKİ (S.Beckett), BİR BAŞKA DEYİŞLE (Sokrates), MUHTEMELEN, YERİNDE OLSAM tabirleri kullanılarak başkalarıyla anlaşma zemini geliştirilmeye çalışılır. Amaç, gerilimi azaltmak, işbirliğini artırmak, yeni bir deneye zemin açmak, başkalarına katılım şansı sunmak, yani alenileşmeyen bir rekabet içinde olmaktır (İNGİLİZ DİPLOMASİSİ benzeri).
-Hans Holbein'in 1553'de bitirdiği The Ambassadors (Büyükelçiler) tablosu, Rönesans ve Reform dönemindeki yaşam dönüşümlerinin en çarpıcı belgelerinden biridir. Tablodaki elçilerin medeniliği, güne ait ritüellerin ve nesnelerin değişiminin/yenilenmesinin vurgulanması etkileyicidir. Medenilik ve nezaket, simgeler arasında bağların kurulmasına ve gündelik sosyalliklere ihtimal sağlanmasına olanak verir, militarist dilden sivil dile geçişe zemin hazırlar.
-SOL hareketlerin tarihi, partici, yukarıdan aşağıya, disiplinli ve birlikçi anlayışla sosyal ortaklaşmacı, aşağıdan yukarıya, gevşek ve dahil edici anlayışların mücadelesini de içerir. İlk yaklaşım genel anlamda siyasi ve diyalektik, ikincisi ise sosyal ve diyalojik olarak değerlendirilebilir. Bana göre, İNSANLARI PASİFLİKLERİNDEN ÇEKİP ÇIKARMAK İÇİN, siyasi söylemler (diyalektik) yerine, GÜNDELİK YAŞAM DENEYLERİNE ODAKLI ORTAKLAŞMA (diyalojik) yöntemleri kullanılmalıdır. Ortaklaşmalar için, antik Yunan'dan ve Çin'den beri var olan ve kent yaşamlarını sağlamlaştırmış olan ATÖLYELER sistemi (açık çalışma, aktif katılım, işbirliği) kullanılabilir. Atölyelerin doğurduğu zanaatlar, zanaatkârların yaptıklarının ellerinden rastgele alınmasını önleyecek ADALET düşüncesini ve LONCA sistemini yaratmıştır. Loncalardaki "üyeleri tanıtma" ve "gün sonunda her farklı katkının ilan edilmesi" ritüelleri, işbirliği ve üretim kalitesinde yükselmeye katkılar sağlamıştır. FABRİKA dönemine geçiş, bu bağlılık ve dayanışmayı geriletmiştir.
Atölyeler ve diyalojik ilişkiler aracılığı ile yaşamı güvenceye almaya yönelik altyapıların üzerinde geliştirilebilecek olan iyi niyet kökenli İŞBİRLİĞİ, saldırganlık ve öfke taşıyan mevcut REKABETİ yumuşatabilir.
-FİZİKSEL EMEĞİN BERABER İCRA EDİLMESİ, emekçilerin sosyal bağlarını ve diyalojik sosyal davranışı geliştirebilir ve Yahudilerin “Histpashtut fikri”, Fransisken manastırları, J.J.Rousseau, Tolstoy ve Kibbutz, bu fikrin savunucuları ve uygulamaları olmuştur. Bu tip bir beraberliğe, yani MODERN TOPLUMUN TAMİRİNE ACİLEN İHTİYAÇ VARDIR. Bu tamir, ATÖLYE ÇALIŞMALARI ve atölye içinde elde edilen tecrübelerin topluma aktarılmasıyla gerçekleştirilebilir. SOSYAL TAMİRDE, mimaride kullanılan restorasyon (geçmişin önceliği), iyileştirme (şimdinin gerektirdikleri) ve yeniden yapılandırma (deneysel-radikal) yöntemleri kullanılmalı (“Berlin Neues Museum” tüm tamirin harika bir örneğidir), sosyal ilişkilerin kolaylaştırıcısı ve kaynaştırıcısı olan ritüellere bile yeniden hayat verilmelidir.
-İŞBİRLİĞİ, toplumsal yaşamın kalitesini artırır ve YEREL TOPLULUK iyi bir kaliteli yaşam arayışı için başlangıç noktası olarak alınmalıdır. Bu işbirliğine, başkalarını Montaigne’in DEDEKTİF BENZERİ DİNLEYİCİLİĞİ (asli niyeti anlamaya yönelik, ifade fetişizmine boğulmayan, hiddetten uzak, pasif itaate itmeyen, üstün bilgi ve otorite ile ezmeyen) ile dinleyerek başlayabiliriz. Konunun her tarafını kavrayabilmek üzere çok yönlü bakmanın değiştirdiği odak noktaları, insanları sakinleştirir ve tepkilerinde daha objektif olmalarını sağlar.
ALÇAKGÖNÜLLÜLÜK ve MEDENİLİK, diyalojik metodun ve başkalarıyla anlaşmanın vazgeçilmezidir. KENDİLİĞİMİZ, TATMİNSİZLİK, KİBİR ve SEFALETLE DOLU BİR YAPIDIR. VAHŞİ BASİTLEŞTİRİCİLERİN ÇAĞINDA bu halimizden kurtulmak için MERAK, DİYALOJİK yöntem ve EMPATİ yoluyla kurulacak SOSYAL BAĞLARA ihtiyacımız var ve bunu başarabileceğimize inanıyorum.
-ABD aşırı derecede KABİLE toplumu haline gelmiştir ve "BİZE-KARŞI-ONLAR" psikolojisi her şeyi ele geçirmektedir. "Bize-karşı-onlar" ilkel dürtüsü, kabilenin devamlılığını sağlar. KENT ise, FARKLI OLANLARIN, ZAHMET GEREKTİREN ve DİYALOĞA DAYALI İŞBİRLİĞİ ile devam edebilecek bir düzenektir; stereotipiyi taşımaz (Aristoteles).
-Günümüzde zenginler ile diğerleri arasındaki GELİR UÇURUMU giderek büyüyerek sosyal mesafelerin de gerilmesine yol açmakta, ticarette olduğu gibi insan ilişkilerinde ve çalışılan işte KISA VADELİLİK ve yüzeysellik egemen olmaktadır. Çalışma alanlarında, yöneticiler tarafından, ekip halinde çalışma süreleri 9-10 AY ile kısıtlanarak insanların birbirlerine alışmaları önlenmekte ve bölümler arası DİYALOG MİNİMALİZE edilerek, birinin diğeri için depo gibi bilgi saklayana (SİLO ETKİSİ) dönüşmesi, kendisini ilgilendirmeyen hiçbir şeyle ilgilenmemesi sağlanmaktadır. Silo etkisi, işbirliğinden ve farklı olandan uzak durmayı, her şeyi bilindik/tanıdık HOMOJENLİĞE/AYNILIĞA indirgemeyi öne çıkarmaktadır. İşbirliğinin gerektirdiği vasıf ise, MAKİNALARIN vasıfları devralması ile azalmaktadır.
-Yeni bir UNICEF çalışması, gelir uçurumu arttıkça çocukların uğradığı şiddetin ve çocuklar arası ŞİDDETİN ARTTIĞINI, işbirliğinin ise azaldığını göstermiştir. Aynı çalışmada, çocuk ve gençlerin, sahip olmadıkları şeylere İHTİYAÇLARI OLDUKLARINA (tüketim nesnelerine sahip olmama hali, medya ve reklam sektörünce aşağılanma nedenine dönüştü); kendileriyle ilgili bir şeylerin ters gitmesi halinde ise DİKKAT EKSİKLİĞİ-HİPERAKTİVİTE veya DEPRESYON teşhisiyle ilaç kullanmaları gerektiğine İKNA EDİLDİKLERİ ortaya konmuştur. Ayrıca, çocukların ekrandaki insanlara canlı gördüklerinden daha fazla inandıkları anlaşılmıştır.
-Yapısal/ekonomik eşitsizlikler ve yeni iş gücü formları nedeniyle ZAYIFLAYAN İŞBİRLİĞİ, koşullarla baş edemeyen insanın GERİ ÇEKİLMESİNE ve İŞBİRLİĞİ YAPMAYAN KENDİLİK haline gelmesine neden olmuştur. Geri çekilme, YALNIZLIĞA ve onun devamında KÖRLÜKLE birlikte gelen NARSİSİZME yol açmaktadır. Kişi, başkalarının ihtiyaçlarıyla kendisinin bastırıldığını düşünür ve “NE YAPIYORUM”un sorumluğunu almak yerine, “NE HİSSEDİYORUM”un kolaycılığına kaçarak, eylemi değersizleştirir. Narsisizm, BAŞKALARINA İLGİSİZLİK ve GÖNÜLLÜ İNZİVA ile insanı KAYGIDAN KAÇIRAN ve HİSSİZLEŞTİREN bir kabuktur. Narsisist, toplum arasına karışır ama GÖRMEZ, insanlara dokunur ama HİSSETMEZ. Narsisizmin yanı sıra, Dünya Sağlık Örgütü, dünyada DEPRESYON SALGININ var olduğunu (her 4 insandan 1’inde) ve her 7 insandan 1’inin ilaç kullandığını bildirmiştir.
-“ZAMANSIZ ZAMAN” diye adlandırılan bilgisayar çağında, işgücünün rastlantısallığı, geçiciliği ve proje bazlı oluşu hüküm sürmekte, yeni üniversite mezunlarının iş yaşamları boyunca 3 KEZ temel yetenek/teknik, ortalama 12 KEZ de iş değiştirmek zorunda kalacakları öngörülmektedir.
-Çocukların çalışma hayatlarında varabileceği gelir grubu dilimi, çok büyük oranda anne-babalarınınkine eşdeğer kalmaya mahkûm hale gelmiştir. Kazanan her şeyi alır mantığındaki kapitalist, en yırtıcı hayvana dönüşmektedir. Farklı olana karşı kış uykusuna yatma, tek başına bowling oynama, internetten tıklayarak eyleme, çok yere üyelik ama çok azına aktif katılma, işbirliğine yanaşmayan KİNİZM TOPLUMUnun ortak özellikleri olarak yaşanmaya başlamıştır.
-Genel anlamda, yöneticiler daha iyi olanın üste çıktıklarına inanırlar. Londra’daki “Chartered Management Institute”ün bir çalışmasında, çalışanların %50’si mevcut yöneticilerden daha iyi yönetebileceklerini, %49’u daha iyi yöneticinin gelmesi halinde maaşının azalmasına razı olacağını, %47’si ise kötü yöneticiler nedeniyle işlerinden ayrıldıklarını belirtmiştir. En büyük ortak görüş, YÖNETİCİLERİN ALTLARINDAKİ İNSANLARIN GÖRÜŞLERİNİ ALMAKTAN UZAK DURUP, AKTİF BİLGİDEN MAHRUM OLDUKLARI şeklindedir.
-Global çalışma-yaşama tarzı, “hep başka yerde olan” ve “küresel lüksün donattığı bir kozanın içinde yaşayan” YÖNETİCİLERİN, geçmişte hayır kurumu, hastane ve sanat organizasyonu yönetimlerindeki görevlerini tasfiye etmelerine yol açmış, başkalarına ilişkin sorumluluktan vazgeçmelerini kolaylaştırmıştır ("Wall Street’te kimse birbirinin elini tutamaz" deyişi).
-İŞBİRLİĞİ, insanlaşmanın öncülüdür ve tecritte birey gelişemez. İnsanın kendisini fark etmesi ve bireyleşmesi, deney yapmayı ve diğerleriyle iletişimi (diğerlerine dikkat/özen ve cevap verebilirlik) gerektirir.
Sahne sanatlarıyla uğraşanlar, başkalarına olan ihtiyacın şaşırtıcı düzeyde olduğunu, tek başına yapılan çalışmaların toplu prova yani EGO YIKICI SANAT sayesinde terbiye edildiğini bilir.
ARILAR ve KARINCALAR ile zirveye ulaşan İŞBİRLİĞİ AKLI, tek arı veya tek karıncada asla bulunmayan, birlikte iken işleyen, yaşamı güvenceye almak için işleyen bir çarktır ve bireylerden kaynaklanan eksiklikleri kompanze eder. Aksayan bireylerin görevlerini üstlenmek üzere genetik kodları mevcuttur ve işbirlikleri fabrika mekanikliğinde olmayıp, çevresel değişikliklere cevaben yeniden ve yeniden kurulur.
-Almanca BİLDUNG kelimesi, dünyadaki konumunu, diğerleriyle olan ilişkilerdeki yerine bakarak öğrenmek ve kurmak anlamında kullanılır ve toplumsallığı tanımlayan en güzel kelimelerden biridir. Bu kavramın önemli yansımalarından biri, 18.yy.da Alman kafelerinde yaygınlaşan, hayatın zorluklarını birlikte düşünüp ortaklaşmak için aylık okuma grupları vasıtasıyla sosyal sınıflar arasında gerçekleşen buluşmalardır.
-Çin’de uzak akrabalık ve tanıdıklık bağları üzerinden işleyen kredi sistemi olan GUANXİ, söz-şeref anlayışı temelindedir ve resmi sistemdeki çatlakların yaratacağı çalkantıların aşılmasında halen çok işe yaramaktadır.
-EKRAN SEVDALISI gençlerin KONGRE KATILIMCILIĞI ve BERABER YEME-İÇME-EĞLENME konularındaki HEVESLERİ, resmi olmayan değiş tokuşların, işbirliğinin çekiciliğine örnek olabilir.
Facebook, Twitter, paylaşım siteleri ve bloglar, "SIKIŞTIRILMIŞ İLETİŞİMLER" olup, "ORADAYIM" ve "ORADA OL" anlamı taşırlar; kendileriyle dolu ve fark edilmek için bağıran milyonlarca insanı gündeme getirirler. Öylesine etkili olmaya başlamışlardır ki on-line hastalık paylaşım sitelerinin, yüz yüze görüşmelerden daha etkili olduğu bir çalışmada gösterilmiştir. Hedef-Sonuç odaklı olduklarında bu şekilde fayda sağlayabilen bu internet alışverişlerinin, basit bilgi paylaşımlarıyla ifadeyi eksilterek insanlar arası anlayışı azalttıkları ise ortaya konmuş bir gerçekliktir. Asla ilişki olmayan ve ilişki için ARAÇ olan Facebook-Twitter’da insanların çekiciliği bağlantı sayıları ile tanımlanmakta ve bu aritmetik, ayrımcılık ve dışlamayı ortaya çıkmaktadır. Çocuk ve genç için toplumsal ilişkiler artan şekilde on-line ve teatral olarak sürdürülmekte ve gerçek sosyallik etkileşimleri azalmaktadır (USA-UK’de Avrupa’dan daha da fazla).
-Konuşma ve eylemlilikte DİYALEKTİK yöntem (tez-antitez-sentez) sık kullanılan yöntem olup, bugün için daha çok ihtiyacımız olan ise karşıyı daha iyi anlamaya yönelik DİYALOJİK yöntemdir. Bu yöntemde, söylenmeyen ama İMA EDİLENLERE dikkat artırılarak (T.Zeldin), GERÇEK NİYET anlaşılmaya, geçişlere/kavramaya/alışmaya zemin oluşturacak gri zonlar yakalanmaya çalışılır. BELKİ (S.Beckett), BİR BAŞKA DEYİŞLE (Sokrates), MUHTEMELEN, YERİNDE OLSAM tabirleri kullanılarak başkalarıyla anlaşma zemini geliştirilmeye çalışılır. Amaç, gerilimi azaltmak, işbirliğini artırmak, yeni bir deneye zemin açmak, başkalarına katılım şansı sunmak, yani alenileşmeyen bir rekabet içinde olmaktır (İNGİLİZ DİPLOMASİSİ benzeri).
-Hans Holbein'in 1553'de bitirdiği The Ambassadors (Büyükelçiler) tablosu, Rönesans ve Reform dönemindeki yaşam dönüşümlerinin en çarpıcı belgelerinden biridir. Tablodaki elçilerin medeniliği, güne ait ritüellerin ve nesnelerin değişiminin/yenilenmesinin vurgulanması etkileyicidir. Medenilik ve nezaket, simgeler arasında bağların kurulmasına ve gündelik sosyalliklere ihtimal sağlanmasına olanak verir, militarist dilden sivil dile geçişe zemin hazırlar.
-SOL hareketlerin tarihi, partici, yukarıdan aşağıya, disiplinli ve birlikçi anlayışla sosyal ortaklaşmacı, aşağıdan yukarıya, gevşek ve dahil edici anlayışların mücadelesini de içerir. İlk yaklaşım genel anlamda siyasi ve diyalektik, ikincisi ise sosyal ve diyalojik olarak değerlendirilebilir. Bana göre, İNSANLARI PASİFLİKLERİNDEN ÇEKİP ÇIKARMAK İÇİN, siyasi söylemler (diyalektik) yerine, GÜNDELİK YAŞAM DENEYLERİNE ODAKLI ORTAKLAŞMA (diyalojik) yöntemleri kullanılmalıdır. Ortaklaşmalar için, antik Yunan'dan ve Çin'den beri var olan ve kent yaşamlarını sağlamlaştırmış olan ATÖLYELER sistemi (açık çalışma, aktif katılım, işbirliği) kullanılabilir. Atölyelerin doğurduğu zanaatlar, zanaatkârların yaptıklarının ellerinden rastgele alınmasını önleyecek ADALET düşüncesini ve LONCA sistemini yaratmıştır. Loncalardaki "üyeleri tanıtma" ve "gün sonunda her farklı katkının ilan edilmesi" ritüelleri, işbirliği ve üretim kalitesinde yükselmeye katkılar sağlamıştır. FABRİKA dönemine geçiş, bu bağlılık ve dayanışmayı geriletmiştir.
Atölyeler ve diyalojik ilişkiler aracılığı ile yaşamı güvenceye almaya yönelik altyapıların üzerinde geliştirilebilecek olan iyi niyet kökenli İŞBİRLİĞİ, saldırganlık ve öfke taşıyan mevcut REKABETİ yumuşatabilir.
-FİZİKSEL EMEĞİN BERABER İCRA EDİLMESİ, emekçilerin sosyal bağlarını ve diyalojik sosyal davranışı geliştirebilir ve Yahudilerin “Histpashtut fikri”, Fransisken manastırları, J.J.Rousseau, Tolstoy ve Kibbutz, bu fikrin savunucuları ve uygulamaları olmuştur. Bu tip bir beraberliğe, yani MODERN TOPLUMUN TAMİRİNE ACİLEN İHTİYAÇ VARDIR. Bu tamir, ATÖLYE ÇALIŞMALARI ve atölye içinde elde edilen tecrübelerin topluma aktarılmasıyla gerçekleştirilebilir. SOSYAL TAMİRDE, mimaride kullanılan restorasyon (geçmişin önceliği), iyileştirme (şimdinin gerektirdikleri) ve yeniden yapılandırma (deneysel-radikal) yöntemleri kullanılmalı (“Berlin Neues Museum” tüm tamirin harika bir örneğidir), sosyal ilişkilerin kolaylaştırıcısı ve kaynaştırıcısı olan ritüellere bile yeniden hayat verilmelidir.
-İŞBİRLİĞİ, toplumsal yaşamın kalitesini artırır ve YEREL TOPLULUK iyi bir kaliteli yaşam arayışı için başlangıç noktası olarak alınmalıdır. Bu işbirliğine, başkalarını Montaigne’in DEDEKTİF BENZERİ DİNLEYİCİLİĞİ (asli niyeti anlamaya yönelik, ifade fetişizmine boğulmayan, hiddetten uzak, pasif itaate itmeyen, üstün bilgi ve otorite ile ezmeyen) ile dinleyerek başlayabiliriz. Konunun her tarafını kavrayabilmek üzere çok yönlü bakmanın değiştirdiği odak noktaları, insanları sakinleştirir ve tepkilerinde daha objektif olmalarını sağlar.
ALÇAKGÖNÜLLÜLÜK ve MEDENİLİK, diyalojik metodun ve başkalarıyla anlaşmanın vazgeçilmezidir. KENDİLİĞİMİZ, TATMİNSİZLİK, KİBİR ve SEFALETLE DOLU BİR YAPIDIR. VAHŞİ BASİTLEŞTİRİCİLERİN ÇAĞINDA bu halimizden kurtulmak için MERAK, DİYALOJİK yöntem ve EMPATİ yoluyla kurulacak SOSYAL BAĞLARA ihtiyacımız var ve bunu başarabileceğimize inanıyorum.
August 29, 2019
Read: Theodore Zelvin, Voltaire’s Candide, Theodore Keel
Vocabulary
Omniarch: a ruler of everything in the world or universe
phalanx: a group of people or things of a similar type forming a compact body
sensate: perceiving or perceived by the senses
evince: reveal the presence of (a quality or feeling); indicate:
ontology: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
propinquity: the state of being close to someone or something; proximity
Find here: explanations of dialogic and dialectic discussion
Sennett’s work reads more like vague academic descriptions of various trends and events than coherently argued ways for co operation. I frequently wanted to abandon this book; I do not think that it is of much value.
“Complex societies like our own depend on workers flowing across borders; contain different ethnicities, races and religions; generate diverging ways of sexual and family life. TO force all this complexity into a single cultural mould would be politically repressive and tell a lie about ourselves.” (4)
“Putnam has found that first hand experience in fact leads people to withdraw from these [racially different] neighbours; conversely, people who live in homogenous social communities appear more sociably inclined towards and curious about others in the larger world.” (4)
“What we can gain from demanding sorts of co operation is insight into ourselves.” (6)
“As in a good discussion: its richness is textured in differences that do not , however, keep people from continuing to talk.” (16)
“Ritual enables expressive co operation in religion, in the workplace, in politics and in everyday life.” (17)
“Dialectic starts in Aristotle’s observation that in the Politics that ‘though we may use the same words, we cannot say we are speaking of the same things’; the aim is to eventually come to a common understanding.” (18)
“ ‘Dialogic’ … name[s] a discussion which does not resolve itself by finding common ground. Though no shared agreements may be reached, through the process of exchange people may become more aware of their own views and expand their understanding of one another.”
Geselligkeit – German word: the sheer pleasure people take in each other’s company
“Movements of all political stripes have to deicde whether to emphasize unity or more diverse inclusion, they have to cope with intra-group politics, they have to define the kind of solidarity they want.” (39-40)
“As between [political] parties, so within them, compromise dilutes identity.” (46)
“Co operation at the apex of power produces a structural problem for all coalitions: the loss of connection of the apex to the base.” (46)
“The alliance between politics and journalism became more professionalized in the 19th century as printing costs came down, literacy among workers went up and the habit of reading newspapers became widespread.” (48)
“But political co operation at the apex of power runs into serious troubles with the base, the mass, of people below … as organisations become larger and stronger, bureaucracy erects barriers between top and base; the rituals which bind leaders in back-rooms are not transparent to those outside.” (62)
“Any individual wanting to build change from the ground up faces [the challenge of active co operation]; the challenge is great when working with people who are nor carbon copies of ourselves.” (64)
“Sensing how different you are from someone else wears off in time; if you dine or drink with someone twenty times this is likely to disappear.” (81) UWC!!
“Rituals are one way of structuring symbolic exchanges; rituals establish powerful social bonds.” (86)
“Rituals go stale if they remain stuck in the first stage of learning, that of a habit; if they go through the full rhythm of practice, they self renew. “ (91)
“Bildung – German word which can be defined as learning one’s place in the world, as placing oneself in relation to others.” (126)
“In the U.S., the wealth share of the middle quintile has increased 18% in real dollars during the last fifty years while the wealth share of the top 5% has increased by 293%; today the odds of a student in the middle classes making as much income as his or her parents are 2 to 5; the odds of the top 5% of the population becoming as wealthy as their parents is over 90% … in capitalism, social cohesion is inherently weak.” (133-4)
“In capitalist societies with strong family cohesion, in schools which emphasize the importance of studying together, the social consequences of economic inequality can be countervailed.” (141)
“The ethical frame for earned authority is the willingness to assume authority, for oneself and for the group.” (173)
“A rhythm thus appears: ingraining habit, questioning the habit and re-ingraining a better habit.” (201)
“Only through behaving with minimal self assertiveness do we open up to others – a political as well as personal concept.” (211)
“Using minimum force can embody a response to those who resist or differ.” (212)
“When an object goes wrong we need to think about what was wrong as well as right about it in the first place. As with objects damaged by time, so with people; they are survivors whose biographies have left them damaged, but the beginnings of their life stories were not necessarily mistakes.” (215)
“Like all professional attempts at conflict reconciliation, these encounters began with mutual demands, accusations and declarations. It took a long time for the exchanges to get anywhere … Progress occurred through achieving what Theodore Keel calls ‘symbolic cover’; co operation on the small issues moves forward to symbolize that something can be done; large, irreconcilable issues are deferred, perhaps permanently.” (231)
Sir Ernest Satow’s Satow’s Diplomatic Practice (1917)
“the genius of this work is to show how informality, indirection and mutuality can be injected into even the most stiff meeting. Four of Satow’s counsels are particularly useful… the first explains what to do if two sides in a conflict want to test a possible solution without actually taking ownership of it on the recored: in this case, Satow counsels passing a piece of paper silently across the conference table.” (238)
“The demarche… is a document which floats a set of ideas and talking points for circulation, without the authors actually asserting what they think or believe what’s in the document… The demarche can invite a subtle kind of participation … float[ing] feely so that all parties can engage equally in discussion.” (238-9)
“The past was in them, still disturbing but no longer a governing history; the trauma strengthened the convictions they possessed about how to lead their lives.” (256)
“Other aspects of practising co operation: dialogic practices which are skilled, informal and empathic.” (275)
“The twentieth century perverted cooperation in the name of solidarity. The regimes which spoke in the name of unity where not only tyrannies; the very desire for solidarity invites command and manipulation at the top… The perverse power of solidarity, in its us-against-them form, remains alive in civil societies of liberal democracies, as in European attitudes towards ethnic immigrants who seem to threaten social solidarity, or in American demands for a return to ‘family values’; the perverse power of solidarity makes itself felt early among children, reaching into the way they make friends and construct outsiders.” (279)
“The new forms of capitalism emphasise short term labour and institutional fragmentation; the effect of this economic system is that workers cannot sustain supportive social relations with each other.” (279)
July 27, 2019
لم يلامس الكتاب سقف التوقعات... العنوان في جانب ومواضيع الكتاب في جانب آخر، تدفق للأفكار والشواهد ولا تعرف محلها من الإعراب ولا ماذا يريد أن يخبرك المؤلف... ربما يحتاج قراءة ثانية
April 3, 2021
Together is the second of Richard Sennett's trio on the skills people need to sustain everyday life - craftsmanship (The Craftsman); cooperation (Together) and shaping the physical environment (Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City).
To be honest, reading Together was a hard slog; it's been a while since I've left grad school and reading academic writing, even relatively accessible academic writing like Sennett's, took some effort. Reading it with the expectation of a focussed thesis on what it takes to build the skill of cooperation in different contexts will lead to frustration. Approaching Together as a meditation and freewheeling exploration of cooperation might be more appropriate.
Sennett starts out by pointing out that cooperation is not inherently positive, e.g. in the case of collusion or criminal cooperation. Cooperation is demanding and difficult when it "tries to join people who have separate or conflicting interests, who do not feel good about each other, who are unequal, or who simply do not understand one another". This is the kind of cooperation we should strive for as it builds bridging social capital between different social groups.
As social creatures, humans are primed for cooperation to a certain extent. As babies, we are attuned to verbal and visual cues from our caregivers; we learn to communicate with our caregivers. Yet, "hard cooperation…requires skill…[like] listening well, behaving tactfully, finding points of agreement and managing disagreement, or avoiding frustration in a difficult discussion…[that is] dialogic skills".
Sennett notes that there are two kinds of conversations - the dialectic and the dialogic. The dialectic leads to synthesis and requires skill in "detecting what might establish…common ground….the good listener detects common ground more in what another person assumes than says. The listener elaborates that assumption by pitting into words. You pick up on the intention, the context, make it explicit and talk about it". The dialectic often involves the emotional reward of sympathy - participants in the conversation reach a shared understanding and gain satisfaction in that identification with each other.
By contrast, the dialogic (term coined by Mikhail Bakhtin) refers to "a discussion which does not resolve itself by finding common ground. Though no shared agreements may be reached, through the process of exchange people may become more aware of their own views and expand their understanding of one another." Empathy, rather than sympathy, is more linked to dialogic exchange - there isn't the satisfaction of closure unlike the case of the dialectic. It is more demanding "since it requires us to focus outside ourselves".
Sennett argues that modern society has weakened cooperation in distinctive ways. First, growing economic inequalities increases the distance between the elite and the masses, creating more us vs them thinking and behaviours. He cites Robert Putnam, who argues that "passive participation now marks civil society; people may belong to many organisations but few ordinary members become active." The elite in global cities "move constantly from city to city, country to country; they are not locals…on the ground, in place of civic association, the new elite has carved out for itself little islands of sociality in [their home base - think high end restaurants, elite clubs and the like]".
Second, modern labour and modern organisations emphasise mobility over careers spent in a single organisation, and the "isolation of individuals and departments in different units". This undermines the relationship building that cooperation requires. Instead "short term teamwork" is privileged.
Third, the way in which cities have developed have resulted in a disconnect between where people work and live. Previously, there was a geographic link between labour, family and community. Moreover, the fact that retail commerce is now dominated by multinationals rather than local firms means that profits no longer remain in the community; instead, "local retail economies now function as colonial natural-resource economies once did, generating wealth that is extracted and exported." The stripping of money from the community makes it harder to get people to volunteer, as volunteers are put off by the increasingly large burden they are made to bear and the charities they serve are ill-resourced to do the work they need to do. Sennett concludes that "modern society is 'de-skilling' people in practising cooperation".
What might help the development of the hard skills of cooperation? Rituals, Sennett argues, is one avenue. Rituals allow for the repetition and practise of patterns (and the underlying skills) of cooperation. They ingrain habits. Perhaps weaving in opportunities for informal cooperation into everyday activities such as parenting, schooling, and shopping so that diverse individuals can encounter and participate in cooperation in ways they can relate to tangibly. (The criticism of this is that such communal cooperation, while offering good experiences, "is not a way of life" and does not lead to sustained action).
To be honest, reading Together was a hard slog; it's been a while since I've left grad school and reading academic writing, even relatively accessible academic writing like Sennett's, took some effort. Reading it with the expectation of a focussed thesis on what it takes to build the skill of cooperation in different contexts will lead to frustration. Approaching Together as a meditation and freewheeling exploration of cooperation might be more appropriate.
Sennett starts out by pointing out that cooperation is not inherently positive, e.g. in the case of collusion or criminal cooperation. Cooperation is demanding and difficult when it "tries to join people who have separate or conflicting interests, who do not feel good about each other, who are unequal, or who simply do not understand one another". This is the kind of cooperation we should strive for as it builds bridging social capital between different social groups.
As social creatures, humans are primed for cooperation to a certain extent. As babies, we are attuned to verbal and visual cues from our caregivers; we learn to communicate with our caregivers. Yet, "hard cooperation…requires skill…[like] listening well, behaving tactfully, finding points of agreement and managing disagreement, or avoiding frustration in a difficult discussion…[that is] dialogic skills".
Sennett notes that there are two kinds of conversations - the dialectic and the dialogic. The dialectic leads to synthesis and requires skill in "detecting what might establish…common ground….the good listener detects common ground more in what another person assumes than says. The listener elaborates that assumption by pitting into words. You pick up on the intention, the context, make it explicit and talk about it". The dialectic often involves the emotional reward of sympathy - participants in the conversation reach a shared understanding and gain satisfaction in that identification with each other.
By contrast, the dialogic (term coined by Mikhail Bakhtin) refers to "a discussion which does not resolve itself by finding common ground. Though no shared agreements may be reached, through the process of exchange people may become more aware of their own views and expand their understanding of one another." Empathy, rather than sympathy, is more linked to dialogic exchange - there isn't the satisfaction of closure unlike the case of the dialectic. It is more demanding "since it requires us to focus outside ourselves".
Sennett argues that modern society has weakened cooperation in distinctive ways. First, growing economic inequalities increases the distance between the elite and the masses, creating more us vs them thinking and behaviours. He cites Robert Putnam, who argues that "passive participation now marks civil society; people may belong to many organisations but few ordinary members become active." The elite in global cities "move constantly from city to city, country to country; they are not locals…on the ground, in place of civic association, the new elite has carved out for itself little islands of sociality in [their home base - think high end restaurants, elite clubs and the like]".
Second, modern labour and modern organisations emphasise mobility over careers spent in a single organisation, and the "isolation of individuals and departments in different units". This undermines the relationship building that cooperation requires. Instead "short term teamwork" is privileged.
Third, the way in which cities have developed have resulted in a disconnect between where people work and live. Previously, there was a geographic link between labour, family and community. Moreover, the fact that retail commerce is now dominated by multinationals rather than local firms means that profits no longer remain in the community; instead, "local retail economies now function as colonial natural-resource economies once did, generating wealth that is extracted and exported." The stripping of money from the community makes it harder to get people to volunteer, as volunteers are put off by the increasingly large burden they are made to bear and the charities they serve are ill-resourced to do the work they need to do. Sennett concludes that "modern society is 'de-skilling' people in practising cooperation".
What might help the development of the hard skills of cooperation? Rituals, Sennett argues, is one avenue. Rituals allow for the repetition and practise of patterns (and the underlying skills) of cooperation. They ingrain habits. Perhaps weaving in opportunities for informal cooperation into everyday activities such as parenting, schooling, and shopping so that diverse individuals can encounter and participate in cooperation in ways they can relate to tangibly. (The criticism of this is that such communal cooperation, while offering good experiences, "is not a way of life" and does not lead to sustained action).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 19, 2014
In this stimulating book Richard Sennett investigates how people who have conflicting interests, are unequal or don't understand each other might engage in `difficult', constructive cooperation. Sennett's view is that cooperation rests on a set of skills - he refers to them as `dialogic skills' - that can be learned and have to be sustained. Our contemporary society has been weakening those skills in distinctive ways. Increasing economic inequalities translate in everyday experiences of elites becoming ever more remote from the masses. This engenders an `us-against-them' thinking that stands in the way of cooperative behavior. The contemporary workplace - with its siloed structures, short-term commitments and lack of accountability - has progressively dissolved the `social triangle' (earned authority, mutual respect, cooperation during crisis) that infuse the work experience with an essential civility.
The notion of civility is pivotal in Sennett's argument. He traces its origins back to a sea-change in sociable behaviour in 16th century Europe, away from the chivalric values that were tightly woven into the fabric of aristocratic life to a set of civilized codes that were rooted in skilled, professional conduct. Early Reformation diplomacy and the replacement of guild hierarchy by a flatter, more flexible workshop structure are key developments that laid the foundation for this new ethics of sociability.
In investigating how we might reinvigorate our capacity for cooperation today, Sennett revisits the artisan's workshop. The embodied knowledge that craftsmen bring to bear on their tools, materials and co-workers whilst making and repairing things provides a rich analogy for an everyday diplomacy that helps people in dealing with others they can't relate to, or don't understand: they use minimal forces in dealing with resistance, create social space through coded gestures, and make sophisticated repairs which acknowledge trauma. Also professional diplomats' skills in navigating the borderline between formality and informality are to an extent transferable to our daily environment as an aid to managing conflict and foster cooperation.
Sennett's book is particularly timely at a point in time when the global economy's `creative destruction' is fragilizing huge swaths of the middle class in postindustrial societies. Ideally, these people will be able to move beyond resentment and withdrawal to embrace a redefined sense of inner purpose based on communal cooperation. However, Sennett cautions us along different lines against believing well-being prophets and transition gurus that this is a comfortable challenge. He discusses at length how in the twentieth century the very desire for solidarity has led to institutionalization, inviting command and manipulation from the top. Sennett thinks this collective bargaining strategy has ultimately sapped the strength of the Left. At an individual level there is no simple promise of happiness in cooperation and associationism for those who are struggling for survival in economically vulnerable communities.
Here we have sketched out only some of the main themes that Sennett develops in this book. Whilst Sennett obviously pushes himself to write in an accessible style, his erudition and scholarly temperament inevitably shine through. As a result the narrative strikes me a rather labyrinthine and it pays to take patient notes in keeping track of the evolving argument.
It is, perhaps, a pity that Sennett does not dwell at all on the considerable experience that has been built up in recent decades with all kinds of techniques to sustain multi-stakeholder dialogue and work towards accommodation between people holding different worldviews (I am thinking of approaches as diverse as `world cafés' and `soft systems methodology'). In that sense his book puts the `why' of cooperation more in relief than the `how to'. `Together' is not a practical guide for aspiring community organizers and facilitators but a richly layered reflection on the past and future of a vital cultural legacy: the dialogic skills needed for `hard' cooperation.
The notion of civility is pivotal in Sennett's argument. He traces its origins back to a sea-change in sociable behaviour in 16th century Europe, away from the chivalric values that were tightly woven into the fabric of aristocratic life to a set of civilized codes that were rooted in skilled, professional conduct. Early Reformation diplomacy and the replacement of guild hierarchy by a flatter, more flexible workshop structure are key developments that laid the foundation for this new ethics of sociability.
In investigating how we might reinvigorate our capacity for cooperation today, Sennett revisits the artisan's workshop. The embodied knowledge that craftsmen bring to bear on their tools, materials and co-workers whilst making and repairing things provides a rich analogy for an everyday diplomacy that helps people in dealing with others they can't relate to, or don't understand: they use minimal forces in dealing with resistance, create social space through coded gestures, and make sophisticated repairs which acknowledge trauma. Also professional diplomats' skills in navigating the borderline between formality and informality are to an extent transferable to our daily environment as an aid to managing conflict and foster cooperation.
Sennett's book is particularly timely at a point in time when the global economy's `creative destruction' is fragilizing huge swaths of the middle class in postindustrial societies. Ideally, these people will be able to move beyond resentment and withdrawal to embrace a redefined sense of inner purpose based on communal cooperation. However, Sennett cautions us along different lines against believing well-being prophets and transition gurus that this is a comfortable challenge. He discusses at length how in the twentieth century the very desire for solidarity has led to institutionalization, inviting command and manipulation from the top. Sennett thinks this collective bargaining strategy has ultimately sapped the strength of the Left. At an individual level there is no simple promise of happiness in cooperation and associationism for those who are struggling for survival in economically vulnerable communities.
Here we have sketched out only some of the main themes that Sennett develops in this book. Whilst Sennett obviously pushes himself to write in an accessible style, his erudition and scholarly temperament inevitably shine through. As a result the narrative strikes me a rather labyrinthine and it pays to take patient notes in keeping track of the evolving argument.
It is, perhaps, a pity that Sennett does not dwell at all on the considerable experience that has been built up in recent decades with all kinds of techniques to sustain multi-stakeholder dialogue and work towards accommodation between people holding different worldviews (I am thinking of approaches as diverse as `world cafés' and `soft systems methodology'). In that sense his book puts the `why' of cooperation more in relief than the `how to'. `Together' is not a practical guide for aspiring community organizers and facilitators but a richly layered reflection on the past and future of a vital cultural legacy: the dialogic skills needed for `hard' cooperation.
December 30, 2020
the intro is strong but sennett likes to take the long way around sometimes to make a point and i found it difficult to work through for a subject i'm really interested in learning more about.
Want to read
October 17, 2015The BBC4 sociology podcast Thinking Allowed brought Richard Sennett to my attention in a brief discussion of cooperation in a February 2012 program. What he said there was intriguing enough I looked him up here.
The crucial point he had made in the discussion was that cooperation requires unspoken rules, often in the form of rituals. The example he cites is the trading floor of a financial market. All the business that is transacted couldn't be done if the actors didn't follow an elaborate set of rituals, but not only are those rituals not written down, but they can't be.
My thoughts on this: to write down the rules of cooperation would transform them into something new, which occupy a different place in the brain: laws, instead of guidelines. When we perceive legalisms, there is the corollary that what isn't prohibited is permitted, and it becomes possible to game the system by following the letter of these laws while ignoring the spirit. When the "rules" are implicit, we only have the spirit and gaming becomes a form of cheating that is harder to define but easier to condemn.
I'm interested in this perspective of cooperation because our modern society has much more anonymity than the conditions in which we evolved. Much more, I believe, than our ancestors experienced just a few generations ago in their more intimate enclaves of class and ethnicity. Anonymity means people won't have these shared rituals and guidelines and instead rely on laws — which are subject to evasion, which then requires more laws.
On a barely related note, this also ties into my skepticism that we are anywhere near the goals of strong AI — creating a synthetic intelligence that is anywhere close to being sentient. Sennett's exploration of how something as critical as cooperation only functions when it is rooted in unconscious thought reminds me that I don't think we understand sentience anywhere near well enough to start pretending we can replicate it.
This book is also related to my project on exploring the sociology of evil. To quote from one of the reviews of this book—
Two excellent reviews of Sennett's book were identified by another Goodreads reviewer, and both are laudatory: one by the IndendentUK (quoted above) and another by the GuardianUK.
The crucial point he had made in the discussion was that cooperation requires unspoken rules, often in the form of rituals. The example he cites is the trading floor of a financial market. All the business that is transacted couldn't be done if the actors didn't follow an elaborate set of rituals, but not only are those rituals not written down, but they can't be.
My thoughts on this: to write down the rules of cooperation would transform them into something new, which occupy a different place in the brain: laws, instead of guidelines. When we perceive legalisms, there is the corollary that what isn't prohibited is permitted, and it becomes possible to game the system by following the letter of these laws while ignoring the spirit. When the "rules" are implicit, we only have the spirit and gaming becomes a form of cheating that is harder to define but easier to condemn.
I'm interested in this perspective of cooperation because our modern society has much more anonymity than the conditions in which we evolved. Much more, I believe, than our ancestors experienced just a few generations ago in their more intimate enclaves of class and ethnicity. Anonymity means people won't have these shared rituals and guidelines and instead rely on laws — which are subject to evasion, which then requires more laws.
On a barely related note, this also ties into my skepticism that we are anywhere near the goals of strong AI — creating a synthetic intelligence that is anywhere close to being sentient. Sennett's exploration of how something as critical as cooperation only functions when it is rooted in unconscious thought reminds me that I don't think we understand sentience anywhere near well enough to start pretending we can replicate it.
This book is also related to my project on exploring the sociology of evil. To quote from one of the reviews of this book—
Caught between the "us-against-them" ethos of our gang, group or community, and the "you-are-on-your-own" individualism of the unforgiving marketplace, we are, he believes "losing the skills of cooperation needed to make a complex society work".I've only made it through Arendt's book and haven't even gotten a copy of Baumeister's or Simon-Cohen's, but I'm already suspicious that this effect of our modern (and, even more so, post-modern) society also is lowering the threshold for "evil".
Two excellent reviews of Sennett's book were identified by another Goodreads reviewer, and both are laudatory: one by the IndendentUK (quoted above) and another by the GuardianUK.
October 11, 2018
The author, well known for his books on labor and cities dives deep into mutual benefits focusing on how the new world of "impatient" capital, new forms of labor and increasing structural inequality means we must rethink how cooperation can be strengthened.
To understand one difficulty in expanding cooperation in this ever more dangerous world of anonymous online trolls and daily road rage incidents, he brilliantly defines the "uncooperative self", a new type of citizen emerging in the world who has lost contact with others in any meaningful way due to their lack of informal and formal ties to any group. Obsessed with their own feelings and place in the world, they refuse to honor the larger blockchain of courtesies carefully built over generations and instead resolve their own anxiety through retreat and alignment only with those they perceive as exactly like them. Powerful stuff.
Additionally, his criticism of coalition work grown too large to maintain contact or ability to gather meaningful input from their base is well argued and something many of us have noted even as we know that coalition-building is vital. As those in the good food movement know, meaningful cooperation among groups requires an awareness of how the decisions affect those along the chain. His analysis of coalitions is helped by the description included of the five type of exchanges, often collectively known as game theory. These exchanges are important to understand for anyone building cooperative initiatives as the very definition of cooperation means that benefits are exchanged, yet HOW each actor benefits is not always the same.
In terms of keeping coalitions viable, there must be a process for ensuring that the "face-saving rituals" used by their leaders don't become more important than making gains for their supporters. Anyone who has viewed elected officials' pointless press conference to show political cooperation that then goes nowhere in passing meaningful legislation or those types of agreement that cities allow developers that include benefits for the at-risk in their original agreement even as all players know full well that the loopholes to allow them to do away with those benefits, knows this type of ritual.
Sennett's obvious allegiance to cooperation via community organizing is something I share and so I found it helpful to have that Alinsky-style and settlement house history and characteristics described and outlined, including those examples at the end of the book of faith-based, simplicity-based or socially-based community cooperation.
The only slight criticism I have is the last chapter with his restoration, remediation, and reconfiguration methods of community-building need a little more work to make that framework useful. Still, this book is a milestone in understanding why and how working together has changed and how it can be reborn in this new age.
May 18, 2012
It was refreshing to read an analysis of social life and co-operation that did not rely on neuroscience or cod economic theory. Sennett grapples with the problem of how we build social bonds without relying on the expedient of trying to 'engineer' behaviour from the top down. Instead he argues that co-operation requires skill that is developed through social practice over time. Sennett is trying to develop an organic conception of social relations. This attempt founders due to an over-reliance on the culture of individual "self-help"that helped to create the divided society he decries.
August 11, 2020
Un libro que va más allá de la cooperación: sobre la civilidad, los rituales, la precariedad laboral, el duelo, la comunidad, el compromiso, la reparación, etc. El autor salta de un tema a otro y de una época a otra con mucha habilidad. No expone una teoría o un sistema. Tampoco es especialmente erudito. En la estela de Montaigne, Benjamin y Arendt.
July 3, 2013
Many facts that probably are good illustration for presented ideas, but mostly they are unknown. At times it was hard to follow the author.
June 23, 2022
interesting message and info, format and style are so overwhelming and confusing. if maximalism was a writing style, it would be Richard's.
November 18, 2023
"كانت فرضيتي بشأن التعاون أننا لا نفهم دوماً ما يدور في قلوب وعقول الآخرين الذين ينبغي علينا التعامل معهم. لكن تماماً، وكما استمر مونتين في اللعب مع هرَّته لعبته الغامضة، أيضاً يجب ألا يمنعنا غياب الفهم المتبادل من الانخراط مع الآخرين. فغايتنا إنجاز أمرٍ مشترك. هذه هي الخلاصة البسيطة التي آمل أن يستخلصها القارئ من هذه الدراسة المعقدة"
في مواجهة التعصب: التعاون من أجل البقاء – ريتشارد سينيت
دراسة ماتعة وجميلة للغاية، تبحث في الأصل الإنساني للاجتماع سوية والتعاون في مجالات الحياة كافة، وتقف على أهمِّ مراحل التطور التي أصابت النزعة التعاونية لدى البشر، والعوامل التي رفعتها وحطت من شأنها، والمتعلقة بالشؤون الدينية والطقسية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية.
يتحدث سينيت عن المجتمع الحديث الذي ينزع من الناس مهارة التعاون، أو يثبطها ويخمدها في أحسن الأحوال، ويشير إلى أن مهارات المواساة أكثر نجاعة في تثبيت التعاون مقارنة بالتعاطف، لاعتمادها على مهارات الحوار البارعة التي يمكن أن تُثبت الترابط الإنساني بعيداً عن تخيلات المرء الهشة في أن يحلَّ مكان الآخر، ومن هنا، انطلق لمناقشة ظهور اليسار الاجتماعي ونظيره السياسي، مشدداً على أحقية اليسار الاجتماعي في التعبير عن التعاون، لعدِّه إياه غاية في حد ذاته، واعتماده الحوار وسيلة إنسانية ضرورية لتحقيقه، مقابل اليسار السياسي الذي يعدُّ التعاون وسيلة للتكسب ويركن إلى خلق الجدل بدلاً من الحوار الفعال.
وبعد إشارته إلى فشل الدين والنزعات الأخلاقية الحديثة في إيجاد التوازن بين التنافس والتعاون، فإنه يُثبت الأثر الفعال للطقوس في خلق توا��نٍ فعال ودائم، خاصة عندما يتسع أثره ويشمل الأخلاق المجتمعية، ويزداد أثره كذلك عندما نفهم النظام الذي يرسخ اللامساواة في أذهان الأطفال منذ الصغر، واعتمادهم على المنتجات والآلات بدلاً من غيرهم من الأصحاب وأفراد العائلة، وعلى النزعة الاستهلاكية بدلاً من التعاونية.
ثم تناول انتفاع النخب الرأسمالية من العقود قصيرة الأجل التي تخلق حالة من التوظيف السريع للجميع، فيترسخ في الأذهان جميعاً "أن لا أحد مُستثنى من الاستبدال في أيِّ وقت"، مشيراً إلى تفكك المثلث القديم الذي يربط بين السلطة والثقة والتعاون في بيئة العمل، لتحل محله اللامساواة البنيوية وأنماط العمل الحديث والتشكيل الثقافي للذات، والذي يجعلها أكثر انغلاقاً وتقوقعاً، هرباً من بيئة الحصر النفسي والضغط من حولها، وفي هذا الصدد، يشير سينيت إلى ظهور الذات غير المتعاونة كنتيجة لهذا النظام، والمعتمدة على نفسها والمادة لخلق بيئة آمنة تحيطها، ولو كانت هشة تسقط عند أيِّ اضطراب.
وفي محاولته الإشارة إلى بعض الحلول، يتحدث الكاتب عن إعادة تشكيل مفهومنا عن التعاون من داخله، وإعادة النظر في الأقنعة الاجتماعية التي تخدم تعاوننا وتسهم في خلق أرضيات مشتركة بين أفكارنا المتطرفة والبعيدة عن بعضها البعض، أو ما يدعى عادة بالمهارة الدبلوماسية في الحديث، وفي إشارت�� إلى مظاهر التعاون البارزة، تحدث عن الالتزام ذي المنبع الديني في أمريكا، ونظيره المستند إلى البساطة في العلاقات، وثالثٍ إلى الاختلاط الاجتماعي.
ويُشير الكاتب أخيراً إلى أهمية الثقة في نزعاتنا الإنسانية، والتي ستفتح لنا أبواباً شتى من العلوم والمجالات المعرفية، والتي ستساعدنا على فهم الإنسان بما هو عليه، واستيعاب التعاون القائم على ترابطنا، لا التضامن القائم على أثر السلطة علينا:
"يُمكن للتبسيطات الحداثوية الفظيعة أن تقمع وتفسد مقدرتنا على العيش المشترك، لكنها لا تستطيع إزالة هذه المقدرة ولا محوها. إننا قادرون، كحيوانات اجتماعية، على التعاون بشكل أعمق من الآفاق المستقبلية للنظام الاجتماعي القائم، لأن هرَّة مونتين الرمزية والمُلغَّزة مقيمة في ذواتنا".
الكتاب ماتع ومفيد وجادٌ في طرحه، ويستحق القراءة مراراً.
في مواجهة التعصب: التعاون من أجل البقاء – ريتشارد سينيت
دراسة ماتعة وجميلة للغاية، تبحث في الأصل الإنساني للاجتماع سوية والتعاون في مجالات الحياة كافة، وتقف على أهمِّ مراحل التطور التي أصابت النزعة التعاونية لدى البشر، والعوامل التي رفعتها وحطت من شأنها، والمتعلقة بالشؤون الدينية والطقسية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية.
يتحدث سينيت عن المجتمع الحديث الذي ينزع من الناس مهارة التعاون، أو يثبطها ويخمدها في أحسن الأحوال، ويشير إلى أن مهارات المواساة أكثر نجاعة في تثبيت التعاون مقارنة بالتعاطف، لاعتمادها على مهارات الحوار البارعة التي يمكن أن تُثبت الترابط الإنساني بعيداً عن تخيلات المرء الهشة في أن يحلَّ مكان الآخر، ومن هنا، انطلق لمناقشة ظهور اليسار الاجتماعي ونظيره السياسي، مشدداً على أحقية اليسار الاجتماعي في التعبير عن التعاون، لعدِّه إياه غاية في حد ذاته، واعتماده الحوار وسيلة إنسانية ضرورية لتحقيقه، مقابل اليسار السياسي الذي يعدُّ التعاون وسيلة للتكسب ويركن إلى خلق الجدل بدلاً من الحوار الفعال.
وبعد إشارته إلى فشل الدين والنزعات الأخلاقية الحديثة في إيجاد التوازن بين التنافس والتعاون، فإنه يُثبت الأثر الفعال للطقوس في خلق توا��نٍ فعال ودائم، خاصة عندما يتسع أثره ويشمل الأخلاق المجتمعية، ويزداد أثره كذلك عندما نفهم النظام الذي يرسخ اللامساواة في أذهان الأطفال منذ الصغر، واعتمادهم على المنتجات والآلات بدلاً من غيرهم من الأصحاب وأفراد العائلة، وعلى النزعة الاستهلاكية بدلاً من التعاونية.
ثم تناول انتفاع النخب الرأسمالية من العقود قصيرة الأجل التي تخلق حالة من التوظيف السريع للجميع، فيترسخ في الأذهان جميعاً "أن لا أحد مُستثنى من الاستبدال في أيِّ وقت"، مشيراً إلى تفكك المثلث القديم الذي يربط بين السلطة والثقة والتعاون في بيئة العمل، لتحل محله اللامساواة البنيوية وأنماط العمل الحديث والتشكيل الثقافي للذات، والذي يجعلها أكثر انغلاقاً وتقوقعاً، هرباً من بيئة الحصر النفسي والضغط من حولها، وفي هذا الصدد، يشير سينيت إلى ظهور الذات غير المتعاونة كنتيجة لهذا النظام، والمعتمدة على نفسها والمادة لخلق بيئة آمنة تحيطها، ولو كانت هشة تسقط عند أيِّ اضطراب.
وفي محاولته الإشارة إلى بعض الحلول، يتحدث الكاتب عن إعادة تشكيل مفهومنا عن التعاون من داخله، وإعادة النظر في الأقنعة الاجتماعية التي تخدم تعاوننا وتسهم في خلق أرضيات مشتركة بين أفكارنا المتطرفة والبعيدة عن بعضها البعض، أو ما يدعى عادة بالمهارة الدبلوماسية في الحديث، وفي إشارت�� إلى مظاهر التعاون البارزة، تحدث عن الالتزام ذي المنبع الديني في أمريكا، ونظيره المستند إلى البساطة في العلاقات، وثالثٍ إلى الاختلاط الاجتماعي.
ويُشير الكاتب أخيراً إلى أهمية الثقة في نزعاتنا الإنسانية، والتي ستفتح لنا أبواباً شتى من العلوم والمجالات المعرفية، والتي ستساعدنا على فهم الإنسان بما هو عليه، واستيعاب التعاون القائم على ترابطنا، لا التضامن القائم على أثر السلطة علينا:
"يُمكن للتبسيطات الحداثوية الفظيعة أن تقمع وتفسد مقدرتنا على العيش المشترك، لكنها لا تستطيع إزالة هذه المقدرة ولا محوها. إننا قادرون، كحيوانات اجتماعية، على التعاون بشكل أعمق من الآفاق المستقبلية للنظام الاجتماعي القائم، لأن هرَّة مونتين الرمزية والمُلغَّزة مقيمة في ذواتنا".
الكتاب ماتع ومفيد وجادٌ في طرحه، ويستحق القراءة مراراً.
August 21, 2021
Very well written sociological account of the history of relationships in western culture since the Middle Ages. The authors choice to centre this history around the concept of cooperation is wise and important, although it can be criticized. Reading this book has added a lot to my understanding of the
way in which western societies have tried to civilize their interpersonal world. It creates awareness on these issues and respect for other cultures, also struggling with the savage aspects of human behavior, especially in groups.
way in which western societies have tried to civilize their interpersonal world. It creates awareness on these issues and respect for other cultures, also struggling with the savage aspects of human behavior, especially in groups.
February 27, 2023
El recorrido histórico de la cooperación y colaboración me pareció confuso y sin un mensaje central. Con mucha información histórica pero sin una profundización en los elementos centrales de la cooperación.
Que no haya aborado el modelo open source de colaboración y no haber desarrollador el valor que aporta a la comunidad y como se puede expandir y se ha expandido fuera del software creo que es una falta importante.
Que no haya aborado el modelo open source de colaboración y no haber desarrollador el valor que aporta a la comunidad y como se puede expandir y se ha expandido fuera del software creo que es una falta importante.
January 5, 2022
Voor mij springt deze schrijver veel van de hak op de tak. Hij neemt je mee terug in de tijd en dan weer naar het heden en gebruikt voorbeelden om zijn standpunt duidelijk te maken. Aan de ene kant geeft dit interessante inzichten, de hoofdlijn vond ik telkens moeilijk om terug te vinden.
November 20, 2017
Dit boek heeft me woorden gegeven om uit te leggen waarom samenwerking, vriendschappen en goede omkadering zo belangrijk zijn. Ook en zeker in de kunsten.
March 18, 2018
I couldn't even finish it :(
November 20, 2020
A must read!
May 10, 2021
Seemed good in principle from the reviews but starting from its use of "tribal" to mean all the bad things about "factional", it became clear that this was an optimistic white liberal think-piece.
regal-noch-nicht-gelesen
December 26, 2021Julia Friedrichs: „Working Class“ ➡️
Read
February 28, 2023Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation by Richard Sennett (2012)
July 30, 2023
This book is beautifully written and a joy to read. It is full of ideas to mull over about the impulse of humans to cooperate. Highly recommended.
December 29, 2024
Second in the trilogy, Sennett explains how we need to work together to form a better society in rich detail.
March 18, 2013
Richard Sennett contends that "living with people who differ--racially, ethnically, religiously, or economically--is the most urgent challenge facing civil society today. We tend socially to avoid engaging with people unlike ourselves, and modern politics encourages the politics of the tribe rather than of the city." In Together he traces the evolution of cooperative rituals in situations as diverse as slave communities, socialist groups in Paris, and workers on Wall Street. Divided into three parts, the book addresses the nature of cooperation, why it has become weak, and how it could be strengthened. Sennett also maintains that the capacity for cooperation is embedded in human nature.
Sennett is alarmed by the way societies develop tribalism within their ranks and the way in which this "deeply ingrained tribalism" can lead to aggression towards people who are perceived to be "different" from their own culture, background, race, community, or group. Sennett is concerned about modern capitalist societies that, he says, promote social withdrawal (hibernation, loneliness, solitude, and hermitude). Sennett details some causes of social withdrawal such as economic inequality, the breakdown of workplace relations, and the psychological effects of living in an uncertain world. He gives examples of people emigrating from "poor" communities in search of better education and economic prospects - which, he says, perpetuates deprivation in the area they escaped from.
The world is continuing towards mass human migration from poor to prosperous regions. This, in addition to conflict over land and resources, over unequal distribution of resources, over economic disproportions, and over people entering our communities that are "not like us" is pushing people to the brink of unhappiness, dissent, and social withdrawal.
Sennett promotes social cohesion that requires commitment (to community) and empathy. He champions repetitive shared experience of ritual, from religious ceremonies to workplace routines, as a way of promoting social cohesion.
Sennett maintains that cooperation is embedded in every human's genes, but it needs to be strengthened, particularly when interacting with people unlike ourselves. He therefore attempts to explore cooperation as a craft. But he also explores urban design - how cities and communities can be designed for better community cooperation (he says that most urban design is currently homogenous and rigid promoting tribalism and not social cohesion). Tribalism is, he says, "involves thinking you know what others are like without knowing them" which is counter-productive. Tribalism is human cooperation that results in aggression, corruption, collusion, organized crime, and other destructive results such as the "us-against-you" philosophy. Sennett's definition of cooperation in the social cohesion sense is "an exchange in which the participants benefit from the encounter." It is mutual support that can take many forms from the minute to the major - including polite social civilities such as saying "please" and "thank you" to the mutual support required to deal with life's frustrations and unfairness with positive social consequences. He stresses that information sharing, although on the surface appearing to be cooperation, is not communication and shared dialogue.
Sennett is alarmed by the way societies develop tribalism within their ranks and the way in which this "deeply ingrained tribalism" can lead to aggression towards people who are perceived to be "different" from their own culture, background, race, community, or group. Sennett is concerned about modern capitalist societies that, he says, promote social withdrawal (hibernation, loneliness, solitude, and hermitude). Sennett details some causes of social withdrawal such as economic inequality, the breakdown of workplace relations, and the psychological effects of living in an uncertain world. He gives examples of people emigrating from "poor" communities in search of better education and economic prospects - which, he says, perpetuates deprivation in the area they escaped from.
The world is continuing towards mass human migration from poor to prosperous regions. This, in addition to conflict over land and resources, over unequal distribution of resources, over economic disproportions, and over people entering our communities that are "not like us" is pushing people to the brink of unhappiness, dissent, and social withdrawal.
Sennett promotes social cohesion that requires commitment (to community) and empathy. He champions repetitive shared experience of ritual, from religious ceremonies to workplace routines, as a way of promoting social cohesion.
Sennett maintains that cooperation is embedded in every human's genes, but it needs to be strengthened, particularly when interacting with people unlike ourselves. He therefore attempts to explore cooperation as a craft. But he also explores urban design - how cities and communities can be designed for better community cooperation (he says that most urban design is currently homogenous and rigid promoting tribalism and not social cohesion). Tribalism is, he says, "involves thinking you know what others are like without knowing them" which is counter-productive. Tribalism is human cooperation that results in aggression, corruption, collusion, organized crime, and other destructive results such as the "us-against-you" philosophy. Sennett's definition of cooperation in the social cohesion sense is "an exchange in which the participants benefit from the encounter." It is mutual support that can take many forms from the minute to the major - including polite social civilities such as saying "please" and "thank you" to the mutual support required to deal with life's frustrations and unfairness with positive social consequences. He stresses that information sharing, although on the surface appearing to be cooperation, is not communication and shared dialogue.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews