[2018] FUTURES RESEARCH

6062 Chapter 6 - And Just a Few Losers

One of the factors breaking down group loyalties is the growing weakness of the individual's commitment to his or her work - where this often previously represented the prime (group) focus. My father was firmly locked into his work group. Indeed, as I have already mentioned, my whole family, my uncles as well as my grandfathers, worked for the same company - albeit in different departments and in different management roles - but always at the same location.

In part this development has been occasioned by the changes in work itself. Of necessity, work patterns have become more flexible, more fluid, so that individuals move more frequently from job to job; within the organization, but increasingly between organizations - remember my own changes every couple of years, throughout my career. The result is that whatever links might have tied them to their work-group, these are now regularly broken. It is no use organizations bemoaning the lack of loyalty from their workers, when their own search for flexibility has destroyed many of the links on which this loyalty is based. It is hypocritical of those organizations who willfully 'rationalized' (a polite word for firing) unwanted workers in their thousands during the early 1990s, to complain when their remaining workers then move to better-behaved employers!

Beyond these work related changes, however, education has made individuals aware that there is life outside of the narrow confines of the work-place. Their work is, in any case, still too often undemanding - bringing little fulfillment to their lives. They have, instead, turned to new interests; into which they pour the energy, and commitment, which they formerly reserved for their work-group. It is in the context of these new interests that group loyalty, such as it now is, may increasingly be found; be they fishing clubs or single-issue pressure groups. Whatever the reasons, employers can no longer expect their work-forces to automatically make work the central element of their lives - and that poses major challenges in terms of worker motivation.

LOSS OF GROUP INDENTITY

Group identity is also suffering because individuals are becoming increasingly self-aware. Where previously they were willing to defer to their betters and, in particular, to group decisions, they are now aware of their rights; and of the power they hold over their own future. This increasing self-awareness, not least that what is best for the group is not necessarily best for themselves, is a major element of individualism[1]. One result is that, depending upon the specific situation, they are much more willing to shift their allegiances - albeit temporarily - to another group which they think more closely matches their own interests on the specific issue. This position has recently been - unwittingly - reinforced by governments, which have encouraged the breakdown of the strongest groups - such as unions - which they saw as opponents[2]. Governments little realized that, in the process of pursuing their cherished ideologies, they were probably undermining the group loyalty of even their own supporters.

Despite the many reports about the growing greed of the masses, it not necessarily true that these shifting allegiances reflect selfish interests. In an age of affluence, they may often have altruistic motives - a commitment to animal rights or the green environment may be just as much in evidence. The sight - on UK television at least - of middle-aged, middle-class women lying down in front of lorries - be they involved in building unwanted new roads or carrying badly-treated animals - offers an interesting perspective on some of the possible future developments; which might just give governments pause for thought. What happens when these same people move to causes which are genuinely revolutionary?

Work is no longer the prime focus of most individuals' lives - and that is resulting in a breakdown of group loyalties, as well as posing problems of worker motivation.

The growing self-awareness, and self-confidence, of individuals has resulted in them shifting their allegiances between groups; to match their self-interest. This has weakened groups, and the social processes which depend upon them.

WHAT, AND WHERE, IS THE COMMUNITY?

In this context, local communities will develop important new roles. These roles will be, however, rather different - in how they relate to the responsibilities involved - from those of earlier communities. Not least, of these differences, will be those relating to the exact nature of the community. In earlier times this was easily defined - usually in terms of its geographic location; constrained by physical boundaries[3]. Even in terms of the individual's relationships which demand some form of physical contact - and hence must be relatively local - the picture may already be confused. Thus, the individuals may still belong to an identifiable local community - a village, say, with which they have strong links. This is, though, now less likely; as even close neighbors become relative strangers in our rapidly changing society[4]. The recent recognition, that even the physical community has now become an amorphous mass, represent the tip of the iceberg. The intangible communities are even more disparate[5].

Many 'communitarians' - led by Amitai Etzioni from George Washington University - would seem to wish that society returned to its roots in the earlier, geographically based, communities; and, especially, to the values these represented. Accordingly, people are committed to creating a new moral, social and public order based on restored communities. The Economist^[h]  suggests "There is some truth here, albeit distorted and exaggerated. Many people share the vague sense of loss to which communitarians appeal…[but] Communitarians prefer not to look closely at the past we have lost; their appeal is partly to nostalgia, which can tolerate only so much analysis.” Thus, while communitarians' objectives are laudable and they may offer useful ideas in terms of the ideal values of future communities, unfortunately they are somewhat short, as yet, of practical explanation as to how these could be made to work across the whole range of different communities[6].

Whilst, as we will see, the community does have a - different - role to play in this context, it will rarely be simply a geographical community which has come about because of happy accident. If geographical communities are to be meaningful they will still need to create their identities[7]. In any case, I suspect that a nostalgic longing for departed values is unlikely to resurrect the traditional community links of earlier times; apart from some notable exceptions, where such links are already unusually strong - such as in a Kibbutz in Israel or in a remote farming community.

WEB COMMUNITIES

The emerging communities are, instead, those of shared interest, with fellow enthusiasts, of shared spirit; with others aiming for similar fulfillment; of shared action, with those seeking quasi-political outcomes; of shared knowledge, with fellow scholars; and so on. It is too early to predict whether these meetings of minds - typically now in cyberspace, on Internet say - will develop any of the power of more traditional group contacts. Thus, new physical communities may eventually be created by those who have already found shared interests on the Web; the reverse of traditional links. On the other hand, my own research[8] suggests that, as yet, the most successful computer conferencing takes place between those who also meet face-to-face; exactly the opposite of what is expected! Even so, I believe that these contacts, across a range (portfolio) of groups rather than dedicated to any one interest in particular, may be the stuff of the future[9].

One problem which may occur, caused by the physical remoteness of other members of the group and the ethereal nature of the contact with them, is that these links will be relatively weak - and, as such, potentially much less satisfying than the traditional ones. No matter how close your shared interests, an electronic shoulder to cry on does not offer the same comfort as a real one! Neither will such clinically cold relationships - communicated through cyberspace - normally be able to offer friendship, or even a real sense of fulfillment. At the same time, the number of these remote groups claiming the loyalty - and the time - of the specific individual will grow; and will pose problems of management for that individual. At a time when such individuals are striving, at one extreme, to educate themselves to better meet the challenges of change and, at the other, to achieve fulfillment through development of their chosen interests, the complexities of addressing the many options on offer may disconcert not a few of them.

WEB INTERMEDIARIES

There will, therefore, be an emerging role for someone, or something, to act as an intermediary - beyond that offered by impersonal agents on the Web (described earlier) - in these electronic relationships. This may be only in terms of advising on and, to a degree, helping to manage the individual's portfolio of options. Providers of on-going education may be one source of support here[10]. From a different direction, social service, or even leisure, departments of city councils might equally offer themselves; as might commercial organizations, once it becomes obvious that this will be a large (and potentially very profitable) market. Already, replacing the support offered by the physical community of old is becoming one of the major (local) demands on local-government resources over the longer term; as is being recognized by the more perceptive of the local authorities with whom I have worked.

The most important gap which is emerging, though, is that of personal relationships within these groups. No matter how efficient are your local council services, you can't have a satisfying relationship with a dustbin. No matter how well you get on with your contacts in cyberspace, they can't replace real friends. The problem is, as we have seen, that the group structures which used - albeit indirectly - to support the richest relationships - including those with most of our friends - are rapidly disappearing. Something needs to replace these vanishing structures, before the community as a whole breaks down.

The solution may, in part, come from the individuals themselves, who will need to learn how to develop friendships much more rapidly - albeit at a shallower level - and then relinquish them as the people involved move on. I was once told that this was the essence of happiness for any family which moved around the world  - with the armed forces or embassy staff - they just couldn't rely on friendships lasting for more than a few months, so they had to become very proficient at making them rapidly. It is, though, also now becoming the way of life for many ordinary people. So far, since we married - thirty odd years ago - my wife and I have had to move house ten times; in each case to a location quite distant from the previous one, so that most relationships (carefully built up over the previous couple of years, say) inevitably came to an abrupt end.

In terms of society's answer to the problem, unfortunately it is not obvious from which directions any developments might come; though it is likely that they will revolve around a range of solutions rather than focus on just one archetypal new form of community. What is certain, however, is that solutions will ultimately emerge; the demand for them will be too great, even if it is not yet obvious. Of course, some of the caring institutions are already there - but none as yet offer the full richness of relationships which is increasingly needed. It will be interesting to see what forms of organization do emerge to fill the gap; perhaps a virtual reality soap will satisfy some - allowing them to chat to a (seemingly) caring neighbor. Maybe we will all take up pets and religion, just for the company. On the other hand, despite the views of the New Right, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that such support is provided still lies with government[11], especially that at the local level, the response of commercial organizations (or even of some families) cannot be always guaranteed to provide the ‘compassion of last resort’[12].

In general, this is as yet one of the great unknowns; which, as I mentioned earlier, makes this scenario that much less certain. Our personal relationships are usually the key to our personal happiness. We know that the frameworks within which these relationships operate are breaking down; but we do not yet have any firm indications as to what will replace them. On the other hand, in many areas more pluralistic relationships do seem to be replacing at least some of them, and - as we will see later - it is often the societal value system which (still placing all its emphasis on the nuclear family) undermines these new developments.

It is likely that the individual's traditional links to geographical communities will continue to diminish in importance; despite nostalgic remembrances of the values they held in earlier times. The groups to which individuals do belong will, on the other hand,  grow in number and in physical separation - as contact increasingly moves to cyberspace.

The new, cyberspace, group relationships are likely to be relatively weak - offering little real fulfillment or friendship. They will also be relatively large in number - possibly disorienting some of the individuals trying to use them. It is likely, therefore, that intermediaries will be needed to handle, at least, the complexity of the individual's portfolio.

There is a gap developing, between the disappearing - personal - group structures and the emerging - impersonal - ones; in terms of the personal support provided and the relationships offered. People will still need friends! How this gap will be filled, by what form(s) of organization, is not yet clear; though networks of more pluralistic relationships do seem to be growing..

NEW VALUES

Despite the nostalgia for lost values, it is likely that the new organizations - even those providing group support at the personal level - will be essentially value-free. Some basic values will, of course remain, but these will be the core values generally espoused by society as a whole - fairness, sympathy, empathy, charity etc. Indeed, these are precisely the values espoused by the communitarians. They will not be the old, loaded, values previously demanded from group members - patriotism, group solidarity, etc.

The essence of such values, in general, is likely to be that - apart from the basics which are necessary if civilization is to survive - they will be only lightly enforced; and with considerable sympathy, even then, for any deviants. Values will increasingly become a private matter. Almost all our groups felt that this would be the case[13]. This is, though, an issue which is highly controversial. What the new values might be has yet to be established. Most recently, the high ground seems - as indicated above - to have been captured by the 'communitarians'. As yet, whilst their nostalgic return to old-style 'community' values (though not, thank goodness, to the worst of the loaded values) has influenced some political leaders, they have not demonstrated that a 'universal' set of values can be made to emerge as a new 'natural order'.

Our own general groups clearly had difficulty with this aspect. Some features of anarchy (mentioned by all groups, and especially by the experts), inequality (two thirds of the general groups, and almost all the experts) and family values (just over a half of the general groups, but all of the expert groups) indicated they  felt some uneasiness with the values they see emerging in the population as a whole. Their interest in religion (half of the groups) might also have reflected this issue - since their views did seem to identify a real need for religious values to be resurrected. On the other hand, less negatively perhaps, two thirds of our individuals saw little chance of society as a whole breaking down.

COOPERATION

Despite my earlier comments, to the effect that commercial organizations might seize the opportunity to create - and own - this local interface, this is unlikely to be undertaken by firms steeped in the traditions of the 1980s. As will be discussed in more detail later, the new model for the firm will probably be based on co-operation not competition - especially with regard to customers or clients. Indeed, my research[14] shows that - in terms of these groups of stake-holders, at least - most organizations already base their relationships with them on co-operation.

In the case of the interface between the individual and the community, it is evident that pure market forces would, in any case, never be likely to justify the investment in the richness of relationships required. Thus, it is arguable that the commercial organizations which may succeed will appear more like religious organizations than other commercial firms. It was interesting to note that, as early as the 1960s, Hugh Hefner's approach to setting up the Playboy organizations - one of the classic exercises in lifestyle marketing - was at least as much driven by a (quasi-religious) belief in the values it incorporated than by commercial acumen.

In the developing commercial world, this move from (competitive) combat-driven to (co-operative) value-driven approaches is likely to accelerate. As we have seen, it is much more in keeping with the demands of the emerging markets. It is also much more in keeping with the demands of employees who - given the choice of jobs and the more than adequate salaries which will soon be on offer (as the recessions of the later 20th century finally come to an end) - will choose to work for an organization whose values they respect. Not least, it is now becoming the philosophy once more being adopted by leading-edge governments; most notably by  what is becoming the pre-eminent supra-national body - the European Commission.

MONEY IS THE ROOT OF EVIL?

The key symbol of the change is likely to be a move away from the commitment to money as the only worthwhile objective - for both organizations and individuals. Apart from the US, where the philosophy is probably too engrained, the pursuit of money for its own sake will probably decline. Certainly, flaunting it, not least on the forms of conspicuous consumption which were so much in evidence during the 1980s, will probably come to be judged to be in the worst possible taste. This will have implications for the wealthy. They have already adopted a low profile - and will continue to assume a cloak of invisibility; but they will increasingly act against those who threaten to expose them - those who allow themselves to be seen as receiving obscenely large sums of money, from whatever source - by ruthlessly sacrificing these to the mob.

While the financial services sector will remain important, its values too will change - especially after further disasters almost inevitably occur which damage a range of financial institutions which gamble too recklessly. The remaining institutions will make the claim that they want to invest securely in the future of society, even if this means low returns - and will actually, in the main - attempt to do this (though their expertise in this field is sadly depleted), not least prompted by increasingly draconian regulation!

Finally, the reduction of inequality - which is likely to develop as a potent political force - will also become a potent commercial force; especially for those large organizations which may be most at risk from political changes around the world.

ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS

Even though we believe that most organizations will become essentially value-free, one of the most pervasive moral issues is at present that of the overall ethics of the organization, as opposed to individual morality which we have so far examined[15]. The problem is that, as yet, organizational ethics are - despite the proud boasts of the business community - in practice no better than sketchy. Badaracco & Webb - in their widely reported article - for instance report, in terms of how ethics are really implemented, "First, in many cases, young managers receive explicit instructions from their middle-manager bosses or felt strong organizational pressure to do things that they believed were sleazy, unethical, or sometimes illegal. Second, corporate ethics programs, codes of conduct, mission statements, hot lines, and the like provided little help. Third, many of the younger managers believed that their company's executives were out-of-touch on ethical issues...Fourth, younger managers resolved the dilemmas they faced largely on the basis of personal reflection and individual values..." It is no surprise, therefore, that the Henley Centre (reported by Sheena Carmichael) found that "At present in the UK, only 15% of the public broadly trusts multinational businesses to be honest and fair (compared with 27% who trust their newspapers, 39% who trust accountants and 83% who trust their GPs)". This is bad news for corporate ethics, but almost as bad for newspaper ethics!

The minority of groups which discussed the issue believed that the change will occur; but were very uncertain as to the likely speed of such change. On the other hand, three quarters of individuals expect organizations to ‘value ethics’ within two decades. It may be, though, that the revolutionary impacts of the popular rejection of political parties, and of the sleaze they are now seen to represent, will be the main force that accelerates the rate of change in organizational ethics; and, indeed, the mid 1990s backlash is now targeted on senior managers in industry as much as on their political masters.

Future society is likely to become - in terms of the overall values it espouses - relatively value-free; though individuals will be free to take strong positions on issues which they personally judge to be important - and will do so.

The pursuit of money, driven by market forces, is likely to reduce in importance as a basic driver for society; and even for commercial organizations - many of which will become increasingly value-driven. Indeed, money is likely to become unfashionable; in the face of regulatory control of its abuse and world-wide moves towards greater equality.

Organizational ethics, in terms of actual practice, will improve - albeit slowly; to reflect the high standards expected by employees, rather than the low  ones set by politicians.

CHANGING VALUES

What is surprising, indeed astounding once you pose the question, is the fact that there has been so little recognition of - let alone acceptance of - the fact that a radically new set of values is emerging. Why has this been so ignored?

The fact that there is a massive change taking place is obvious. So many commentators and - especially - politicians have bemoaned it that this aspect cannot be other than almost universally recognized; and, of course, our own research groups were keenly aware of such changes occurring across a range of human activities. Yet, in recent times, the debate - such as it is - has almost always revolved around a loss of values. Around us we choose to see declining morals, breakdown of the family, lack of responsibility, no group loyalties, increasing crime, and so on. The most successful computer conference we have ever run was on the topic of ‘ethics’; with literally thousands of contributions. But almost none of us talk about the subject, more positively, in terms of the new value sets which are emerging to replace those which are going into terminal decline. As we will see in a later chapter, such confusion is typical in the period of ‘revolutionary’ changes we are experiencing. Indeed, I now recognize that I, myself, was almost as guilty of this oversight. I almost didn't include a section on values! Influenced by the lack of debate of the changes in values, I had believed that values themselves represented a subject which - despite the heat generated - was only of theoretical interest. Now, of course, I realize it also has major practical implications.

People have been through periods of significant changes in values before. These previous examples, however, were more obvious. They were typically the result of alien values being imposed by conquerors from outside the society, as the Normans imposed their own culture and language on the Anglo-Saxons in England, or by new groups gaining dominance from within the society, as the communists rewrote life in Russia. The difference now is that the changes are taking place within individuals across society!

The immense changes under way across almost all aspects of society, which are described in the rest of this book, are inevitably leading to equally immense changes in our value systems. In turn, the value systems are mediating the way in which, and the rate at which, these other changes take place. Perhaps the links between the two are best seen by looking at some examples we have covered in more general terms elsewhere:

INDIVIDUALISM - where so many of our core values - such as the fairness, sympathy, empathy, and charity mentioned earlier - have emerged from our relations with the group to which we belonged, it is inevitable that new forms of these will be needed to cope with our newly empowered individuals, operating in loose peer-to-peer networks rather than ordered hierarchies. It is unhelpful, therefore, when politicians depict individualism largely in terms of personal greed! Fortunately, individuals seem quite capable of developing their own new value sets, based upon more sensible, and indeed more ethical, considerations.

COMMUNITY - this also means we will have to renegotiate our links with the communities to which we belong, and indeed to reshape, and recreate (or create anew), those communities. Here, the attempts by our leaders to stem the changes to our existing communities again do not help. Much better to let the new forms emerge, even if we are, as yet, uncertain as to what they might be.

FAMILY - as you will have seen, from the earlier sections, the family is evolving into new forms; rather than breaking down. This is where the establishment’s defence of the status quo (for once, the religious establishment as much as the political one) is especially damaging. The demonisation of those pioneering the emerging new forms - be they single parents, divorcees or social workers - distracts our attention from the task of recognizing, and supporting, the new structures.

DRUGS - as a much more trivial example, but one which typifies the problems, the new drugs, which are now accepted by a majority of young people and seem to have few impacts on society,  are subjected to a greater degree of criminalisation than some serious crimes against the person; where the existing drugs (especially alcohol and tobacco) are sold on every street corner despite the fact that they lead to many more deaths, of innocent victims as well as the users.

In the context of this book, therefore, perhaps the greatest impact of changing values comes not from what they are to become but from the friction between them and the old ones desperately promoted by an embattled establishment in an uncertain age. Many of our current problems, and in particular our fears, come from the attempts to hold back the tide of social development; demonising, and even criminalising, the new developments. If we see the loss of old values simply as a loss of morality, then we will be nostalgically locked into a past we can never regain.

SOCIAL EVOLUTION

We have long been made aware of Darwin's theory of evolution; and the human species is probably still slowly following some lines of physical evolution - though, diluted by our desire to protect rather than destroy the weakest in society, the forces which previously led to the survival of only the fittest have now been significantly reduced. As we have already seen, evolution of the individual may now become a matter of personal choice (coupled with the ability to afford this) - in terms of symbiosis with the computer networks - though this in no way invalidates the importance of such new evolutionary forces.

The real evolutionary pressures, though, have moved from the individual to the group, from the physical to the social[16]; and the rate of change has escalated by many orders of magnitude. Even symbiosis with computers is really a social process, rather than an individual one. In just a few millennia we have seen our position change - by analogy - from something approaching that of the solitary aphid to that of a colony of ants; a process which took many millions of years in nature. The structures of our society have changed, and are still changing, at a remarkable speed - to develop a richness and complexity which is now the trademark of human life.

This process, of social evolution, will continue - and may even accelerate further.

If we want our future to be built on values which meet with our approval we must start the debate which will lead to those values - otherwise we must accept the values of others, set by default. It is, unfortunately, impractical to look to the establishment to lead us to those new values, when it has lost its grip on almost all the realities of life.

Social evolution has long since taken over from individual, physical evolution as the main mechanism for the future development of the human species.

HERITAGE AND THE DISTANCE FROM NATURE

Indeed, in a more general sense, society is rapidly distancing itself from nature - even that tamed part of nature which is represented by agriculture. It is creating an artificial world, a construct which gives false values to history; in the form of the heritage industry. This need not be a problem, since each culture views its history in terms of its own values - we have just taken the process somewhat further - and this helps the individual within that culture to better understand their own position within it; if not the true facts of history!

It may seem self-evident, but it is still important to report that a growing proportion of humanity - not least in the Third World - will continue to migrate to the cities. In the developed world there may be some return to town life away from the cities (with their growing problems), and even some developing countries (helped by the new information technologies) may be able to persuade their populations to avoid the cities. Even so, it is the vast sprawling conurbations which will continue to shape the environment of many individuals[17]. This possibility, of global urbanization, is often viewed with alarm; and, indeed, I myself worked hard to stop it happening in Ethiopia. On the other hand, some of the most perceptive of my contacts working in the field point out that - especially from a ‘green’ point of view - cities are remarkably efficient machines, in terms of usage of the infra-structure, for supporting their inhabitants. The problem, of course, is the failure to provide the correct, properly funded, infra-structures; and it is on this aspect we might most profitably focus[18]

As just one poignant example of the more general changes which have come about, one unexpected - and little commented upon - effect has been the disappearance of smells - as opposed to fragrances - in general, and those of nature in particular. The emergence of a global society dedicated to cleanliness - which really has come to be next to godliness - is one of the characteristics of our urbanized society. The equally savage attack on smells, in the house and on our bodies, would also have mystified our ancestors. When did you last encounter a real smell of nature; apart from the socially acceptable smells of new-mown grass and the scent of flowers?

The process is possibly most obvious when you follow the visit of a group of Western tourists to the Third World. The horror with which they greet dust blowing around earthen floors - and the farmyard smells which are not discretely hidden, as in the West - is real. These are interpreted by them not as nature - which, having spent some of my childhood on Welsh hill farms, is my own reaction - but as dirt and squalor; which repulse most Western tourists, who see them as a very real signs of backwardness.

This rejection of the genuine facts of nature - and the creation of an artificial, literally sanitized version - is likely to continue. It will not have dramatic impacts on society, but the hidden values behind the heritage industry - as well as those of the detergent manufacturers - need to be recognized if we are not to misunderstand what it represents.

CONTROL OVER THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

The construction of an artificial environment is perhaps most complete in the home; which - aided by the constant television advertising campaigns of those who would sell us cleanliness in everything - is now not just our castle but our hermetically-sealed capsule protecting us from the dirt and smells of the world outside.

This 'castle' has become a very conservative institution; not least in terms of its physical construction - the forms of our housing have changed remarkably little over the past couple of centuries. This may be no bad thing, if the end result is efficient; and incorporates the lessons learned over these decades. Indeed, in many regions even the humble, and much maligned, mud hut works well; since its thick mud walls keep the inside cool in the midday heat and warm in the night-time cold - and they can be repaired by simply slapping on another handful of mud! Yet the evidence, especially in the IT age, does seem to point towards the need to introduce new forms of dwelling, in developed countries, which now have access to materials and technologies which are more appropriate[19].

This desire for control of the 'personal' environment has long been extended to the surrounding community; positively in terms of the provision of parks - offering carefully controlled versions of nature; neutrally in terms of the council cleaning services - which swiftly remove any rubbish from our sight; and negatively in the form of planning controls - which stop anyone introducing anything which would disturb this idyll.

Dick Atkinson suggest that such things are even more important "After the home, it is the street and the local park with which children identify. If beliefs give a personal identity, place gives a bounded geographical and physical sense of belonging".  Fortunately, the creation of local environments, to match the needs of the local community, will probably continue and accelerate; amongst those communities which can afford them - once more the underclasses, who most need their environment improving, will be excluded. Dick Atkinson goes on to identify some of the current problems "Many parks have lost the sense of confidence and care they had in the past. The majority have boarded up buildings, endemic vandalism and litter...Regrettably, the implicit message given to today's child is that nobody bothers."

This regeneration, where it happens, may also regenerate at least some of the community links which are disappearing otherwise. It may even provide the under-classes with some temporary relief from unemployment, where most of the work created may be in the service sectors and demanding the unskilled labour which has few other outlets.

In line with what was said earlier, though, it should be noted that this local environment will now normally be located within a city; as John Parker puts on the record, "Nearly half the world's population and three-quarters of all westerners live in cities." The key aspect, which it shares with the heritage industry (and with shopping malls - which are now becoming the active heart of city communities), is that this local environment will be an artificial creation - designed to meet the aspirations of each community.

CONTROL OVER THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

This, wider, topic has been seen, at least as presented by the lobbyists working on behalf of the green environmental groups and in terms of media coverage influenced by their activities, to be one of the most important issues for the future - a view which is seemingly supported by almost the whole population. In the developed world at least, we are now all supposed to be 'green'. Our research, however, has shown that the reality on the ground may be rather more complex. Indeed, we were surprised to find that less than half our general groups even mentioned the subject, and, in our earlier research on industry scenarios, there had been a significant split between the third of managers who seemed to be firmly committed supporters of green policies and the remainder who were apathetic about them. The latter did not even consider them as issues for the future; indicating that the position taken by the general groups was possibly more representative of the world at large.

On the other hand, it must be reported that - when asked directly - our individual respondents put almost all of the familiar green fears at the top of their lists in terms of importance; as the media reports might have predicted. Most important of all (at 9.0) were ‘nuclear war’ and ‘global war’, but - fortunately - only a quarter of respondents thought either was a possibility. In practical terms, the most important were seen to be ‘global water shortage’[20] (rated 8.8 with a 60% chance of occurring before 2030) and ‘serious overpopulation’ (8.7, with an even higher, 80%, probability - also by 2030).

When we looked in more detail at specific green issues concerning the future, to try and resolve these puzzling discrepancies, we found that even the third of those in our earlier research who were committed 'greens' seemed to be equivocal at times. The general groups’ concerns seemed - at one extreme - to be much more self-centered, often NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) inspired; new  roads are opposed almost as a matter of course. At the other extreme, their main concerns - and these were major concerns expressed by all the general participants, not just the greens - concerned disasters which might impinge on the future of the whole of humankind[21].

GLOBAL WARMING

Possibly reflecting this perspective, the one key green environmental issue was that of global warming[22] - the only environmental issue specifically identified by a significant number of groups (by two thirds of them) - coupled with fears of the resultant flooding (and, paradoxically, of a new  ice age which might also result). Although ‘global warming’ was rated slightly lower (at 8.3) than some of the other environmental issues,  it was seen as likely to occur by 80% of individuals - and was predicted to happen much earlier, a decade earlier than the other environmental problems, by 2020. The fears of not so long ago, of the effects arising from the ‘ozone hole’, seem to be waning rapidly - only a third of individuals thought them likely to happen, though they were still rated important (also at 8.3).The other topical issues were rarely mentioned; and waste disposal and pollution, even nuclear pollution, were low on the list of priorities; though ‘significant pollution’ was expected to happen by more than 90% of individuals (by 2015) and, indeed, a ‘general environmental crisis’ was anticipated  - by up to 80% of them - to occur as early as 2020 and the imposition of ‘severe environmental laws’ was expected by a similar 90% (before this, in 2015).

We suspect that Allen Tough - professor at the University of Toronto - perhaps best sums up their position "What is most important of all is the continued existence and flourishing of human civilization.  The continuation of humanity, society, and culture...No other goal, value, or priority is more important." rather more brutally, he puts in context the claims of some environmentalists "I do not agree with the view that each form of non-human life is equal in value and importance to human life...Although I hope we can live in harmony with dolphins and elephants forever, I admit I would choose humanity's flourishing over theirs if I were forced to make a choice."

We have now concluded that this, literally 'selfish' set of beliefs, seems to lie at the heart of the debate; and is the reason for the discrepancies in our earlier analyses - which were, rightly, criticized in some publications. We were, in this context, right to take issue with those green-environmentalists who want to preserve the world in aspic. Most of those who took part in our research would, in line with their less combative outlook, wish no ill on any creature; but there would be a strict limit on the price they would be prepared to pay for this ethical stand - the majority of the general public still buy, cheaper, battery-hen producer eggs even though they oppose the idea in principle. In any case, the corollary of Darwinian theory is that species are constantly dying out to be replaced by others; a lesson which the general public understand rather better than the defenders of the crested newt.

What we missed, though, was that when the 'green' picture is painted in terms of survival of our own species - as it often is - this does touch a raw nerve. Thus, the greatest part of the population seems to worry about the global environment specifically in terms of the future of our own (endangered?) species! It is the future of humanity, not the crested newt (or even of whales), which really counts.

Most of humanity, now living in cities, is distancing itself from nature - not least by rejecting its dirt and smells - and is creating an artificial view of nature, which is increasingly being encapsulated in the booming heritage industry.

Communities, which can afford the cost, will increasingly work to control their local environment. While these different environments will be increasingly different, they will reflect the needs and aspirations of each local community. They may also lead to benefits in terms of regeneration of local relationships - and some relief in unemployment.

In general, amongst a complex set of responses, green environmental issues may be seen to be less important for the long-term future than coverage in the popular media might suggest; and, where they are considered, they are largely seen in terms of the personal impacts. It is the future of humanity which really counts.

DISASTERS

Indeed, the one threat which dominated the thinking of most of the general groups - and, to a lesser extent, also worried the expert groups - was that posed by global disasters, in various forms; and 60% of our individuals also expected something on this scale to happen as early as 2020. Most participants were very conscious of the precarious nature of humanity's future over the very long term; and, as suggested above, it seemed to be this, rather than the shorter-term green issues favored by the media, which most powerfully motivated the general groups at least; and was reflected in the answers given by individuals.

It almost seemed as if this was just a symptom of a much deeper fear; which surfaced in terms of the specific issues which might be topical. Thus, the major fear at the time our general groups were meeting was of Earth colliding with another heavenly body - two thirds of the general groups mentioned this possibility. This is a real possibility, though of very low probability - and these results possibly reflected their interest in the spectacular collision at that time between the Shoemaker-Levy comet and Jupiter. The expert groups - meeting more than six months later - barely mentioned this specific aspect, and only 40% of individuals, asked later still, expected this to occur. Epidemics, of the AIDS type perhaps but not specifically AIDS itself (which was most often seen as being eventually the subject of a cure), were another of the unpredictable and uncontrollable threats which worried almost all the groups; though only half our individuals expected global plagues to occur.

Global (nuclear) war was not generally seen as a significant threat - as we have seen only a quarter of individuals thought this was a possibility - though it was mentioned by almost all the general groups (but only by a third of the expert groups - who might be expected to be better informed on this issue). One suspects, however, it might well have come top of the list a decade earlier for all groups - and the current position probably does represent an important change in attitude. Even so, Joseph Coates[b] predicts "Widespread contamination from a nuclear device which will have occurred accidentally or as an act of political/military violence." With so many warheads still deployed, and with so many others being decommissioned in poorly guarded arsenals (and yet others being clandestinely developed), this is not an unreasonable prediction - even if it is an unwelcome one. The crucial difference from a decade or so earlier is that this no longer offers a doomsday threat. The outcome will not inevitably be the end of humankind in a hail of thousands of H-bombs. The most likely outcome is that, even though large numbers of people may die (albeit counted in thousands rather than millions), this will reinforce moves for global peace and towards global government. Thus, though almost all the groups (especially the experts) were still worried about nuclear proliferation; which was also reported by two thirds of individuals - half of whom expected a major nuclear explosion to occurs by 2020. They also worried about the numbers of small wars - though these were no longer were seen to pose a threat to the whole of humanity - and 80% of individuals actually expected a significant regional war to occur within twenty years.

Other natural disasters, such as major earthquakes in key areas (including California and Japan - even before the Kobe disaster) were also seen to be important (by the general groups - though not by the experts), but not threatening global destruction. The fear of disasters also seems to fuel a degree of conservatism in regard to more revolutionary (technological) developments; especially in the field of genetic engineering.

Most important of all, for the general groups at least, it seemed to powerfully link to the development of space as an insurance, a lifeboat, for the future of humanity. This was particularly appropriate, since - as mentioned above - many of the (almost irrational) fears of the general groups originated with threats from space itself; meteors or comets destroying - again - life on Earth. Carl Sagan[a] - the eminent astronomer - reports that "Some 200 Earth-orbit-crossing asteroids and a much smaller number of Earth-orbit-crossing comets have been discovered...There are thought to be some 2,000 objects as large as 1 kilometer in diameter, 320,000 as large as 100 meters and 150,000,000 as large as 10 meters." He estimates that "...every 10,000 years one [the impact of an object 200 meters in diameter] may have global climatic effects and every million years an impact tens of times more energetic than the aggregate yield of the world's current arsenal...enough to cause a global catastrophe and kill a significant fraction of the human species." So, though such a collision is still a remote possibility, maybe those fears are not so irrational after all!

The solution to such threats is not just a lifeboat in space, but is also to counter them from space. As Carl Sagan adds "Proposals have been circulating since 1967 that recommend developing rocket and nuclear-weapon technologies to destroy or deflect near-Earth objects on impact trajectories with Earth." Although nuclear weapons are currently banned in space, it seems likely that this project will ultimately be undertaken - not least because it uses so much of the 'Star Wars' technology which would otherwise be wasted[23]!

The main ‘environmental’ fear is of unpredictable and uncontrollable disasters; from space or from disease, for instance. The main impact of this fear, apart from some conservatism about technological developments, will be a drive for the colonization of space as an insurance for the future of humankind - and as a platform from which to launch counter-measures against heavenly bodies on  collision course with the Earth.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Turning to a much bigger threat to society in the shorter term, unemployment still dominates much of the debate about the future of society. Thus, a majority of our own research groups rated employment as an especially  important factor in terms of future developments - though - interestingly - individuals rated this only 7.2 on the ten point importance scale, even though three quarters expected it still to be widespread for the next twenty years. As a sign of the times perhaps, much more depressingly just 15% (by far the lowest proportion for any issue) thought ‘lifetime/secure employment’ might be a likely; and even these few optimists did not expect it to happen before 2035!. Leadbeater & Mulgan[b] emphasize that "The public regularly ranks tackling unemployment as its top priority. Yet the political world has proven unable to offer credible solutions." They go further, to point out that this is not just a problem facing the governments of the right, which might arguably have initiated the process, but runs 'across the spectrum' where "...a depressing conventional wisdom has taken hold - that high unemployment is inevitable and irreversible. It is based on impersonal global economic forces which are beyond our control or on the moral failings of individuals who are not prepared to look hard enough for work."

The reality is probably more complex[24]. Indeed, I would argue that, in the most important respects, the current large-scale unemployment is a temporary effect of revolutionary pains. The first Industrial Revolution displayed very similar symptoms - which we now recognize as being due to the 'structural' changes then taking place. Agricultural workers, no longer needed by a much more efficient farming sector, were displaced in their millions. Thus, the term 'structural unemployment' - which is often bandied around - may actually offer a good description. The key, though, is that this is not permanent - as is often the popular interpretation (and the politician's excuse) - but is temporary; it will be rectified once the structural changes are complete - as the displaced workers two centuries ago eventually found employment in the new factories. If we can only persuade our politicians from using the term as an excuse for their own failings, we might be able to positively address the issue; and come up with some workable solutions, if you will excuse the pun!

Our view is, therefore, rather more optimistic. If you temper the equivocal views on unemployment, which our research group held, with their optimism about the future in general it is also possible to suggest that they too were not unduly pessimistic overall. In any case, in the West at least, the demographic changes - with fewer young people entering the workforce - will ultimately result in a shortage of skilled labour; almost as soon as the economic boom, even now under way, gets up a head of steam.

The major problem which remains, for the under-classes, is that the new employment will demand new skills, and these will be very different skills. Some commentators talk about a new divide; between those who have IT skills and those who do not - and it is the latter who will then make up the new, enlarged under-classes; forever excluded from the wealth of society[25]. No less than 80% of individuals expect this to be the case within fifteen years. "The nightmare scenario", according to Ian Pearson - of British Telecomm - "is that society will be riven in two, with the employed information literate having as little as possible to do with the unemployed illiterates in the underclass."[26] Making a more general point, Leadbeater & Mulgan[b] stress "...since 1950 five million jobs in the UK have gone from the goods producing industries. Almost eight million new jobs have been created in services, both public and private. But this has not been enough to prevent unemployment rising, partly because the new jobs have not been taken up by men made unemployed [the denizens of the new under-classes] and partly because more women have taken up work."

We, however, suspect this is an alarmist view. The illiterate farm-workers driven off the land in the Industrial Revolution soon became the literate workers in the new factories. Our own computer illiterates may as soon develop the necessary new skills - especially when computer manufacturers are working so hard to improve the friendliness of their machines. The unskilled worker may - by default - gain as much from these developments in computing as the impatient manager, who the computer manufacturers are really courting.

It should be stressed that this is one subject where there are real regional differences. The reaction to much the same trends has been different in the UK and the US. The former has experienced the massive increases in unemployment described above. The latter has, in contrast with the whole of Europe not just the UK, not seen similar rises in unemployment[27] - but (with a more flexible labour market) has seen equally disturbing reductions in income for those in the under-class; and, as Leadbeater & Mulgan point out, "...the costs [in the US] have included growing wage inequalities, strong incentives for young men to go into crime and a huge increase in the prison population."

UNDERCLASSES

Whichever the reason, these young men - locked into the under-classes - present a real problem. From the time they leave school they become just one of the anonymous unemployed (or under-waged); and they now are too often unemployable - not least because their raw strength, the source of their previous work and often of their personal pride as tough men, is no longer wanted by most employers[28]. Thus, their proudly macho image is already under attack[29]. When their women-folk, who have traditionally been subservient, strike out on their own - and succeed in not just taking the family with them but in obtaining work - the impact on the already fragile male ego may be disastrous[30].

Thus, beyond the lack of spending power, the spectacular disempowerment of these groups of under-class males, especially the younger members, is likely to result in major tensions between these groups and the rest of society. In effect they have been made outcasts from society and, as they see it, outlaws. They are, as one result, increasingly likely to ignore the laws of that society - and who can blame them! In one respect, these underclass men are assuming the role that under-privileged women have lived with for generations. The difference is that the women, conditioned by society, accepted their fate uncomplainingly. The men are likely to protest much more vociferously - indeed sometimes with riotous violence.

The most important lesson, here, is that the major problems posed by the (male) underclasses await not the victims themselves but the rest of society; all of us - who might otherwise seem to be gaining advantage at their expense. Society, as a whole will pay the greatest price, and it is, thus, the problem facing society as whole which needs to be addressed.

THE UNDERCLASS THREAT

As we have seen, in the earlier chapter, most groups of the traditional disadvantaged are set to join the rest of society - and share in the spoils of affluence - before they pose a real threat to the stability of society. This is a major change for the better. On the other hand, as suggested above, it is possible that this will not be the case for those specifically identified as belonging to the ‘underclasses’; hence the problem facing society as a whole. Of our individual respondents, 80% believed this would still be the case in twenty years time. Again, it is worth repeating that there are major differences - in this respect - between nations. In US the term generally describes ghetto inhabitants who are typically black (or Hispanic), unemployed, poorly-educated and dependent upon welfare; and usually with disrupted (single-parent) families. More important, in that country the underclass is seen by the majority to be different from the rest of society - in effect as criminals or drop-outs who (almost) deserve everything they get. Something similar has more recently happened in Europe's major cities, but it comes from somewhat different roots - it is a result of long-term unemployment - and it is less desperate in nature; and those afflicted in this way are not seen to be outside of mainstream society. In both cases, however, there no easy solutions are to hand. Almost everyone agrees that the unskilled, and uneducated, who make up this part of the long-term unemployed, are likely to be doomed, by the social changes taking place around them, to a continuation of their misery.

As seen first in America, it comes to affect whole neighborhoods - whole inner-cities - as those left with some prosperity flee; and the downward spiral, into sink estates and communities, gets under way. Even if we never encounter them personally, we all now recognize the pictures on television; of vandalized properties, burnt-out and boarded-up houses, delinquent children hurling stones at the police. More than half our individuals expected inner city collapse to occur within two decades, though only a third predicted total urban collapse (and, even then, not before 2030). Such business as there is also retreats and theft and violence increase, as frustrated youths turn to drugs; and to crime which alone can pay for the new addictions[31]. Paradoxically, the typical victims of this crime are not the rich plutocrats - who, it might be argued, have contributed to the causes of such poverty - but the criminals' fellow paupers. When there are inner-city riots it is the homes of the poor and, in particular, the shops and businesses of the few who have stayed to serve the poor which are looted and burned. This happens even though the houses and shops of the rich - which , if nothing else, should provide much richer pickings -  may be just a few hundred yards away. As a result, the rich, in general, and governments, in particular, can afford to ignore such riots - since they do not even inconvenience them or their followers. Even in terms of murder, the terrible statistics, in the US at least, show that in most cases it is blacks killing blacks, not blacks killing whites![32] In this way, the fact that most of us never have to face these problems personally makes it much easier for our politicians to pretend that they do not really exist. Those living on these estates, however, know otherwise! It was significant that, in the UK, the one riot which did cause the government to react immediately was (uniquely) a middle-class revolt - against a (council) tax - which did start to burn down office blocks in the centre of London!

This willingness by politicians to ignore what is conveniently out of sight - in terms of their political power bases - may be a major element in the creation of a dangerously divided society. For, the problem of the new underclasses is one of the great challenges of the 21st century, for the West in general - and for the US in particular. It just could be a temporary one, resulting from short-term revolutionary pains. But it is one for which no clear solution has yet emerged; and it holds an alarming potential for creating unstoppable civil unrest, even forms of civil war, between the two sides of society - debilitating both in the process[33].

Unfortunately, as history often shows, it is typically the middle-classes who organize effective revolutions;  which is a problem for the new underclasses when the middle-classes - in the US at least - are quite firmly turning their backs on the disadvantaged!

Apart from crime, welfare benefits fund almost the whole of these societies[34]. The Economist says that "Such is the perverse destiny of a European model of a welfare state, devised in expectation of universal full-time employment for men." Even more depressingly, it goes on to add "Unfortunately, job-creation is something for which Europe seems to have lost the knack. The public sector...is stretched to the limit; and the private sector seems incapable of filling the gap." This is one of the great challenges for the 21st century. It just could be a temporary one resulting from short-term revolutionary pains - but it is one for which no clear solution has yet emerged.

MIDDLE-CLASS FEARS

A further problem for most governments, with the significant exception of that in the US, is that the majority of the population - although they are not yet rioting in the streets - see the existence of the under-classes as a failure by government. This may not be a totally unfair judgment for its existence has typically resulted from political choices[35]. This offends most people's sense of fair play and, in an affluent society, they do not believe such inequality need, or should, exist.

Beneath the commendably moral position of the public at large, there also lurks - even in the US - an even more powerful fear. In an age of uncertainty, when disaster can be suddenly visited on anyone - nobody's job is safe any longer - they are understandably (if not totally rationally) afraid of dropping out of society; into these very under-classes[36]. Indeed this fear may not be totally irrational[37], where the specter of unemployment in the 1990s hung over managers (and professionals) as much as their workers. Indeed, we have recently concluded that - since the position for the underclasses themselves has not changed a great deal in the past two decades - the current preoccupation with it is essentially a middle-class phenomenon. Their own fears of unemployment, coupled with the recent admission by governments that they could no longer solve the problem, has created the media interest! Indeed, all of these symptoms may arise from the 'revolutionary' pains mentioned in the first chapter. As such, they may be 'temporary', lasting perhaps a couple of decades - but that in no way invalidates their dramatic impact on the psychology of voters over the short term. Whatever the reason, the middle-classes - almost more than the under-classes themselves, and certainly more than governments - now want the best possible safety-nets. They are already demanding this, and the clamor will grow in many countries - with the possible exception of the US where the process may be too far advanced (though that poses different problems, as we will see later!).

It will, in any case, be in government's interest to address these fears. Just one symptom, 'job stress', is thought to cost the UK up to 10% of GDP annually; through sickness, staff turnover, poor productivity, and premature death. Anyway, for the population to become more flexible - and more amenable to the changes which governments must introduce - they must feel secure.

UNDERCLASS CRIME

Government, and society as a whole, has an even better, rational reason for finding a solution to the problem of the under-classes. Whilst crime is obviously not the sole prerogative of these under-classes, the evidence shows that it is often associated with such deprivation; not least when the members of the under-classes seek to escape from their woes through the use of drugs.  In addition, most crimes are committed by young men - offenses typically peak at the age of 18 - the age group which is now hardest hit by unemployment and harsh social policies. 

Thus, the cost of dealing with the underclasses - and with the associated drug-culture - is increasing rapidly. More than two thirds of individuals expect crime to be endemic by 2015, though only half forecast a breakdown of law and order as a whole. The cost partly arises in the areas of policing - even some parts of the UK are now no-go areas for police, and whole cities are in the US. It also arises from the judicial and penal systems - both of which are being swamped by the tidal wave of drug related crime. Increasingly, though, it is appearing in the personal bills being paid by the individual; at least as rapidly growing insurance changes, but often as the cost of hiring private security firms to protect them - and possibly fleeing to fortified ghettos; three quarters of individuals expect to see walled/guarded communities emerging by 2020[38]. The direct costs soon outweigh any savings which can be made by withdrawing financial support from the, aptly-titled, ‘deprived’. The indirect costs, the fear induced in the wider population - and the resulting lack of flexibility in the face of change - are incalculable. In this context, Leadbeater & Mulgan[b] make the fundamentally important point "The conventional wisdom that governments cannot create jobs misses the point: given the resources any government can create useful jobs...The barrier to public job creation is the level of taxation required to pay for it." The increasing costs (social as well as economic) arising from unemployment are progressively overwhelming those of solving it.

This is not a problem which market forces will, or can, solve. Indeed, the problem itself is actually creating valuable new markets; in insurance and private security, for instance. Paradoxically, the work involved in those crime driven industries is counted as an increase in Gross Domestic Product - not the reduction it really is! Nor will it be solved by taking a quasi-moralistic stand - that any law-breaker must be punished - if the cost of the punishment itself is undermining the economic base of society. It clearly cannot make good social sense to have to switch the investment from higher education just so that you can punish those whose - drug-taking - lifestyles you disapprove of; no matter how strongly you disapprove. There is little or no evidence that imprisoning large numbers of the underclasses, or of any part of the population, reduces the overall crime rate; and considerable evidence that it imposes significant cost burdens on society as a whole. A more enlightened, and certainly a more pragmatic approach to crime will pay dividends in just in terms of the reduced costs. It may be irksome, but turning the other cheek will - in this case - actually help reduce your tax bill!

Whatever the solution, one must be urgently be found for the problems of the underclasses. In line with the earlier discussions about revolutionary pains, it is reasonable to expect that these (temporary) problems will eventually reduce as a matter of course. The underclasses will be re-employed, and indeed retrained, by industries which need them to meet a booming economy. But, in the meantime, the tensions - not to say the violent breakdown of law and order - may create structural distortions, even ruptures, in the fabric of society which will take much longer to heal. Looking on the bright side, this is a problem which most nations - outside of the US - will not have to face; their electorates will never allow their governments to adopt such draconian approaches to the underclasses. Most of you readers (again with the exception of those in America) will steadfastly oppose the idea of imprisoning as much as a third of the male population - as now happens in the black ghettoes of Los Angeles. On the other hand, the US as a whole, in which many of its states (not just California) are already well down the road to final rupture, may find it impossible to avoid the consequences. As a result, a long-drawn-out situation of simmering unrest, verging on civil war between the haves and have-nots, will disfigure many of its regions for decades to come. My apologies to my American readers, but - in an otherwise optimistic view of the future - this is one issue where (in the US) the dark forces may win out!

The greatest losers from the growth in the power of women may be the male under-classes; whose all-important macho image, already severely dented by the loss of their - manual -work, may be all but destroyed. The result is that they may increasingly move outside the laws set by the society which has rejected them.

Political demands for a solution to the problems of the under-classes will increase in most countries; partly for the sake of fairness but, most importantly, because of the fear they provoke - of falling through inadequate safety-nets - amongst the majority of the population.

The cost of not resolving the under-class crisis is incalculable; and cannot be long supported by most societies. Governments, with the possible exception of the US where the descent into the abyss may be too far advanced, are likely to be forced to invest considerable resources - in the short term - to remove the evil of the deprived  and the mounting costs of the related criminal activity - in the long term.

[back]     [home]

hits