As I have already hinted, one of the greatest breakthroughs in terms of individual empowerment is that being pioneered by women. Whether you are a man or, in particular, a woman, never underestimate the power of this particular εvolution!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• If you are a man, do you work with women? If so, do they have the same pay and rights as you? Do you report to a man or woman? Why is that?

• If you are a woman, do you work with men? If so, do you have the same pay and rights as them? Do you report to a man or woman? Why is that?

An Oppressed Majority

For many years, indeed centuries, most women have been treated as members of an oppressed minority. As a result of living longer, not least by avoiding violent death, women became the majority; but still an oppressed one! One of the great advances in recent years, therefore, is the simple recognition by men, as much as by women, that women have been oppressed in this way and that, notwithstanding recent improvements in their position, it is still happening. As such, this oppression still represents a hidden war within society.

It was interesting to note that even within our own research groups, which provided the basic information on which much of this book is based and which were almost by definition made up of individuals who were more progressive than the wider population, the changing position of women was not even mentioned until - in each case - the subject was raised by a woman! Although the topic was eventually discussed at length in most of our twenty or so focus groups, it was never raised by a man! On the other hand, what was even more interesting - and was indicative perhaps of the massive changes to come - was that the men in those groups then readily accepted that such changes were justified and desirable and, more important still, were actually under way.

Men may not really like it, but women have already won the argument! I suspect that this is, however, a relatively recent development. Just two or three decades ago, before the feminists burst onto the political scene, the women's viewpoint would have been ignored. Now it has become a major topic for discussion in the media. I have given more radio and television interviews on this subject that about all the other future trends put together!

Women as Equals…the idea that women are the equals of men, and should have equal rights, is a relatively recent development - and is yet another εvolutionary force now working on society. Indeed, it is arguably one of the most potent, not least as the most obvious symbol of the more general empowerment of the individual. If women can't be empowered to be the equals of everyone else, including of the leaders of society, then who amongst us can be?

Women Leading the Revolution?…this right, like many in this book, has a corresponding responsibility. Thus, it is the responsibility of women readers to positively share the leadership of personal εvolution! You, above all, should be able to recognise what changes are needed to bring that εvolution to its inevitable conclusion. The barriers to your progress have long been enshrined in almost all the structures of society, from its culture to its laws. It should in many respects, therefore, be easier for you, rather than men, to break through these barriers. This is not least because the most difficult aspect is simply recognising that they exist! It is not, though, just a matter of the 'glass ceiling'. That is being raised - in many organisations it now only operates at board level - though it is yet far from being shattered. The challenge now is to address the less obvious limitations imposed by society in general.

Women at Work…interestingly, working practices, the area where women have been subjected to the greatest injustices, is where the most significant changes are now taking place. These changes are not coming about just because men in general, and the male establishment in particular, are realising the errors of their ways. That would be too much to ask! They are mainly coming about because women are fundamentally better suited to the type of work which is emerging in the new knowledge society. As a result of the move from heavy industry, where it was men's muscles that counted, to light office work, where it is brainpower which is needed, women can now compete on an equal footing. Indeed, in many aspects they are better equipped. It was previously very difficult for feminists to argue that women could work productively alongside brawny steelworkers - in the unlikely event that they might want to. Now it is equally difficult for male chauvinists to argue that only the muscles which previously wielded pickaxes can achieve the delicacy demanded by the PC keyboard, though, if they are to continue to be the 'breadwinners', they will have to! Indeed, even worse, the keyboard skills which are essential to the new industries have long been the province of women - and been almost despised by men.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• If you are a man, are you better equipped to do your job than a woman? Why?
• If you are a woman, are you better equipped to do your job than a man? Why?

KEY CONCEPT
Women are, on average, better educated than their male counterparts.

KEY CONCEPT
not a few of the male underclasses may be found amongst the less intelligent; so beware their violent reactions to the changing realities of work.

Educational Achievements

So women already start with an advantage. That advantage is compounded by the fact that women are now coming out of education with significantly better records of achievement than their male counterparts. At the pinnacle of such achievement, more women than men now graduate from university; but at every level of the education system - in most developed countries - girls outperform boys! In part this is due to the reported fact that women, on average, may have a marginally higher IQ than men. To be fair, this is balanced by the possibility that the 'Bell Curve' of IQ may well be broadened in men, so that there might be rather more very intelligent males. In any case, be prepared for the (male) fat-cats to seize on this as an excuse to protect their position! Of greater importance, perhaps, the corollary is that there may be more very unintelligent men - which may be bad news in terms of violence amongst the remaining underclass males.

In the main, though, it is that girls seem much better attuned to the needs of modern educational systems and are culturally better adapted to meeting the performance standards demanded. When they emerge from school they do not just possess higher levels of qualification but are much better equipped, intellectually and emotionally, to take on the challenges of the new work. And they take up those challenges much more effectively than men and with much more of the personal commitment that modern employers demand.

Unemployed Young Males…as indicated above, the new army of the unemployed is increasingly made up of men rather than women and, in particular, of young unskilled men. As you might expect, therefore, my advice to women is simply to build on your comparative advantage. You, better than men, recognise the sort of educational requirements you will need to lead modern society. We will discuss these specific developments later in the book, but suffice it to say at this stage that you - women - are already doing just this, and are establishing your relative dominance, not just your equality, in many of the emerging areas of modern business.

Machos' Pain…to men, my advice is first to recognise what is happening. Many men - especially those in what were described previously as the 'working classes' - have traditionally followed the model of the tough, macho, hard-man, manual labourer. These in particular, will have to dramatically change their approach to life - for there is very little room in the new society for such men - and they will find this painful. In not much more than a generation we have gone from a majority of the workforce being such male, unskilled, manual labourers to one where much of it is now made up of educated knowledge workers - many of them women. Indeed, these days even what manual labour remains, in the construction industries say, is typified by a worker sitting on top of a mechanical digger which is doing all the really heavy work. It is not surprising that there has been some pain. Such men do not view the prospect of becoming pen-pushers with equanimity. What is surprising is how few riots there have been!

Junior Management…the position deteriorates even further for men when we move to the realms of junior management. Once again, women's intellectual achievements, their successes in the educational realms, count significantly in their favour. They typically start from a much better prepared position than their male counterparts. But, beyond that, their approach to management is better suited to modern requirements. Margaret Thatcher talked up confrontational competition in almost every aspect of industrial life - one of her favourite words, indeed her favourite strategy, was 'fighting'. But, fortunately, the world ignored her and instead embraced co-operation has become the byword. This is now just as true of global alliances between competitor organisations as it is of team-leading on the factory floor. In the context of the advancement of women, the key change is that modern management is becoming a team sport. It is a matter of leading one's peers, of building informal networks and inspiring their members, not of issuing orders to subordinates, who are locked into a hierarchical structure which demands obedience.

In these circumstances women are naturally better suited to the role. To put it crudely, what is needed is a caring mother not a dominant father. As the new leaders of the family at home they are also better equipped to lead the new family groupings at work. To change to this new style, becoming a mother to their flock, is quite a challenge to men, especially to those of the old school; but it is one they will have to meet if they want to be the new managers. Yelling at your subordinates, as the old macho managers often did, is now much more likely to lead to you being indicted on a charge of harassment than improving output! So, in the workplace, women will begin to assert their new authority. Their intellectual capabilities, their emotional advantages, are better suited to modern working conditions.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How have management styles changed in your organisation? Are they now better suited to a caring society?

• How has legislation against harassment affected management styles in your area? How do you feel about this?

• What is negative, but - especially - what might be positive about this new environment?

Women in the Home

But they also are gaining new power at home. Traditionally the male was the head of the family and everyone, especially the wife, deferred to him. To put it bluntly they did what they were told! The model was the rutting stag defending his herd of cows. That automatic deference has now disappeared. The family is run as a family unit, as a team, and - in line with other developments - it is now the mother who leads that team. More than that, in an important sense the mother now owns the family unit. This is especially true when the family unit breaks up, following a divorce. Then the children almost always follow the mother. In fact, a considerable proportion of divorced men never see their children again. But even if there is no divorce it is she who now has authority over them The result is that the new 'nuclear family' is no longer a father, mother and two children, but is a mother and two children. If you want proof, just look at the commercials on your television. The happy family group of yore, with the children gathered round the father, has often now been replaced by just a mother and single child!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Looking at your own, and other families, who 'manages' them; the mother/wife or the father/husband? How is this different from the position 30 years ago? Why? What does this mean for these families; and society as a whole?

This model, incidentally, makes much more sense in the context of the new forms of extended family which are developing. The inevitable implication, however, is that the male may now become almost peripheral to the family; and to women. He is an optional extra - perhaps just a fashion accessory - which does nothing for male egos already bruised by their encounters in the workplace! On the other hand, the problems for the resulting single mothers may still be quite significant in terms of income - where the demands of modern society mean that two incomes are now almost essential for the comfortable support of a family. Even so, at the end of the day, the changes still leave women with increasing power over society - not least in their almost sole right to determine the development of the children who will become the future of that society. In general, men are now ancillary to the central elements of that role. Men, they will be glad to hear, can still have important roles to play in the family - when they are invited to do so - and many will still do so. After all it is now a team and, as in all teams, each member contributes important elements. But the central authority is now that held by the mother.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• If you are a mother in a family, what is your role in it? What is that of your partner?

• If you are a father, what is your role in the family? What is that of your partner? What does that do for your self-image?

Nuclear Family…in a society which is becoming much more sensitive to individual demands, and is downgrading most group loyalties, the one group which will remain coherent - and as such will be the basic building block for society - is that of the new nuclear family; of two children led by the mother, with the father only loosely linked to it. It should be clear, therefore, just how important is women's almost total dominance of the family. One great benefit, however, is that it gives that mother a much more stable set of relationships in the uncertain society which is changing so rapidly around her. Her relationships are, indeed, now much more stable than those men have. She typically has a focus to her life, a family of which she is the centre, where men are much more exposed to the threat of change; yet another psychological advantage to the new woman! Where personal, face to face, relationships in future are going to be much more difficult to find, and to capitalise on in terms of emotional satisfaction, this also adds a richness to women's lives which may be missing from those of many men.

Co-operation

Let us return again to a point I was making about women's advantages as the new managers. As I hinted then, women are much better at co-operating, usually with other women, than men; and co-operation is due to be recognised as the main shaping force in society. In truth it always has been. Society exists primarily for its members to co-operate, not for its members to compete with each other. They may choose to also compete amongst themselves, and that may sharpen the effectiveness of some aspects of society, but - despite the legacy of Thatcherism - it is not the most fundamental aspect. Even the market, beloved of economists, is a device for allowing people to co-operate. Competition, even in this context, is an aspect which is not central and, if taken to extremes as it recently has been, may actually damage the market. The moves back to co-operation, our own business research shows that most commercial organisations regularly co-operate even with their competitors, are to be welcomed - not least as a long overdue return to reality. Above all, competition might just have made sense when we were competing with each other for scarce resources - the basic tenet of most economic theory - but it is no longer so relevant where, in general, there is an abundance of resources; as we will see later in the book.

The Feminised Society

The most interesting thing emerging from these debates is that society is becoming what can best be described as 'feminised'. It is adopting positions which are much closer to those of women than those of men. The values of co-operation, of caring, are coming to the fore. When astute politicians, such as Tony Blair, espouse these you can bet that they represent popular developments. Perhaps the single most significant phenomenon to demonstrate this change in values, was the outpouring of emotion on the death of Princess Diana; from men as much as from women. The unthinkable even happened, strong men wept in the street! At long last, men were freed to demonstrate their emotions in the same way as women - hurrah for that small victory for common sense.

The key fact, however, is simply that - although the changes have been less rapid in recent years - this 'feminisation' of society has now been recognised, and accepted, by many men. The now small minority of reactionary men may still not accept the changes, and may continue to fight against them for years to come. In particular, the group of disenfranchised young men in the unemployed underclasses may pose particular problems. They are separated from society, and the developments in it, and their models - indeed, their heroes - remain the gross caricatures of macho bullies which dominated previous generations of the working class. But most men have already accepted the inevitable - simply because it represents a better way of life. Churchill, not the most obvious feminist, once famously said the jaw-jaw was better than war-war. It is only now, however, that society is truly learning this lesson.

The New Man…even so, it would be wrong to pretend that the 'new man', who was reportedly sighted at the end of the 1980s, really exists - even as a sub-species. He turned out to be too sensitive to survive the cold economic winds which blew in the early 1990s. Despite the feminisation of society, few men have taken over the housework. They don't often do the ironing and certainly do not change nappies. This is still seen to be the role of women; who, thus, have to juggle two jobs - as wage earner, often the only one, and servant! It will seemingly be a long time before that aspect of the division of labour changes. This is one price women will have to pay for their new-found power. One consolation, however, is that men now recognise that they ought to share this domestic load - even if they don't do so - and that is one step forward!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• If you are a man, did you ever consider yourself a 'new man'? Did you ever do the dirty work around the house; such as changing nappies? Do you still consider yourself to be such a 'new man'? If not, what has replaced this for you? Why?

• If you are a woman, did your partner ever consider himself to be a 'new man'? Did he ever do the dirty work around the house; such as changing nappies? Does he still consider himself to be such a 'new man'? If not, what has replaced this? Why?

So, the women amongst you readers are to become the leaders of our new personal εvolution. The early evidence is, I am glad to say, that some of you at least are taking up this challenge. After all, as I said earlier in this chapter, it is so much easier for you to recognise what should be done; and so much easier for you to find a will to start, when you have so much less to lose. In that respect your motivation may be closer to that of revolutionaries of previous times. Furthermore the new philosophy is, in any case, yours by nature - co-operation not confrontation.

A Necessary Anger

The one problem is that the aggression necessary, to move on to the later stages of our personal εvolution and start the revolution proper, may be missing. Women have much better things to do than to hate and destroy; yet that was often a prime (male) motivation for previous revolutions. That is why I suggested you might like to get somewhat angry. That, at least, is not outside the range of acceptable feminine emotions. But you will probably have to get very angry indeed, to take on the fat cats of the establishment - as you will need to. Let me help you along a little by describing a couple of their less endearing qualities!

Corruption. The fat-cats use every device they have - legitimate or not - to deny the rest of us, especially women, a fair share of society's riches. No doubt some of them are deluded and honestly believe that they are just taking the fair share that is due to them and simply don't think about the rest of us when they do this. But the reality, which we must focus on, is that they still do deny us our share in order to greedily grab theirs. Indeed, they often teeter on the borderline between what is a merely immoral, except in the selfish society they have created, and what may be judged illegal everywhere. Their only respect is for the money and power they crave. But what really matters is that in the process they take away the means by which we can fulfil our lives.

Hypocrisy. Almost worse, in my eyes at least, is that they then corrupt society itself. They successfully demand that it adopts their values, and abandons ours. They insist that they, the new robber barons, are the heroes and we little people are unworthy of notice, if not even the villains. They don't even have to think of us as the enemy, since they despise us and our values; knowing that our 'meekness' offers them their opportunity to pillage our homes. They, quite correctly until recent times, know that meekness inherits nothing on this Earth. The only saving grace, in the context of this section, is that few - if any - of them are women. Some feminists would argue that woman is good and man is bad. Sometimes it does seem that they may have a point.

Controlled Anger…So much for irrational anger! That's enough provocation for the moment. Another saving grace, in terms of future action, is that nobody will be asking you to kill in the name of the revolution! The values of the personal εvolution, implicit in εvolution, are much more civilised. Meekness may eventually stand some chance of inheriting this Earth. Better late than never! All you will be asked to do is to emasculate them - to take away their money and power - poetic justice indeed.

But this emasculation will be brought about by positively implementing individual empowerment of all of us, to swamp the 'kleptocratic' tendencies of these fat-cats who base all the values of their society on the act of garnering - in fact stealing - more than anyone else.

Lifestyles

Broadening the topic somewhat, the new options available to all individuals especially in terms of the ways that we can be empowered to run our own lives, are perhaps best evidenced by the many different lifestyles which are now becoming available. You will no doubt have seen this most obviously emerging, over recent decades, in new group lifestyles. Indeed, the first manifestation probably came about in the days of my youth when, without realising what was happening, I became one of the first generation of teenagers. It was a heady time, since previously teenagers had not existed - children had remained unseen until (at 21 years of age) they suddenly metamorphosed into adults. As a result, the new power we suddenly unleashed was intoxicating. We discovered rock and roll, and ultimately - in the first genuine lifestyle rebellion - we discovered sex! Later teenagers have progressively reinvented the lifestyle: exploring punk rock, head banging, acid house……

The 1960s Cohort…the subsequent trends were much more subtle. My own age cohort - revolutionary as ever - has moved on to create the grey markets, but in-between we discovered the joys of 30+, Body Shop etc. As we got more confident, indeed aggressive, you didn't even have to search for our hidden lifestyles. By the 1980s we were thrusting them on you in shape of the badges - the designer labels we flaunted, at great expense. Indeed, irrational expense, conspicuous consumption for its own ends, became central to our lifestyles. Now, perhaps, we are at last maturing - and our lifestyles are becoming more contemplative.

These days everyone has the right to their own lifestyle, not just my own generation. On the other hand, I have a slight tinge of collective guilt, in that my own generation, from the first teenage hell-raising onwards, might really be seen as the 'St Augustine' generation. Like that sanctimonious elder of the Catholic church, we lived life to the full when we were young, but now we are older and cannot pursue the sins of the flesh to the same extent. We have also shed our radicalism, to become powerful members of the establishment we once despised. The result is that some of us are - hypocritically - discovering new religions, or at least new contemplative inward-looking values, determined that others should no longer enjoy the fun we once had! Some of our cohort, now members of the establishment they once challenged, are even trying to reverse everything we stood for in the 1960s.

Lifestyle Marketing…the trends in lifestyles have now spread across all generations. They have long been evident to marketers, who have increasingly targeted their products on such specific lifestyle groups. These have been more broadly described in terms of what are called aspiration groups - people who aspire to a similar way of life. Most importantly, we buy the products associated with these and proudly flaunt the labels which mark them out. In many respects our behaviour is totally illogical, but it is very effectively played upon by the marketers. So, some clothing manufacturers - just by affixing their own label - can gain both the inflated revenues from the much higher prices thus achieved - for almost identical goods - while the we foolishly carry around the 'billboards' advertising their merchandise.

This is still the hangover from the conspicuous consumption economy. Our actions, naively supporting the billionaire suppliers who have capitalised on these new desires, represent an aggressive statement of who we are; or at least who we would like to be. Not least, they yell at others the message that we can afford these. Even more foolishly we pay perhaps ten times as much to make that loud boast!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What 'commercial' lifestyles do you subscribe to? What labels do you wear? Do you wear Armani, to show you are a badge-carrying member of the establishment? Or do you wear clothes from 'The Gap', to indicate that you are trendy and a bit of a radical - though not so much that you might offend anyone?

• What do you think of the 'statements' these badges make about you? What do you think of the fat-cat owners of these brands who have grown rich on your support?

Saint Diana…as I indicated, earlier, lifestyles are now becoming rather more subtle than that. In much the same way that Princess Diana, a new patron saint for our times, moved on from being little more than a clothes horse for the designer labels to very effectively espouse her good causes, we are increasingly advertising our own commitment to such good causes - not least to all the new green values. Our latest lifestyles may now have to show some form of commitment to caring, perhaps even to green values. Paradoxically, you do this by paying a lot more to a commercial operator for these clothes and in the process you support precisely those whose materialistic philosophies you probably oppose!

Manufactured Lifestyles

So far, almost all of these are, though, manufactured lifestyles - quite literally so. Marketers have become very adept at artificially creating the ambience with which their customers want to associate themselves. Then all that is needed is to sew the correct label on! Well, its not quite all that is needed. A significant amount of advertising and PR is also necessary to get the message across. Perhaps understandably, sociologists - who are as confused as we are about the changes taking place in society but would hate to admit this - have latched onto this element, of signs and symbols (the labels and brands which now say who we are), as being the most important aspect of lifestyles. They go further, to adopt these commitments to new lifestyles as the central element of our new society; of, in their terms, 'post-modern' society. Ah, if it were only that simple!

Real Lifestyles…but lifestyles are now, thankfully, moving away from the merely superficial and coming to represent more fundamental aspects of human behaviour. I said earlier on that people can - for the first time - now choose how they live all aspects of their lives. As I have also already said, the marketers recognised that fact first. They stepped in to make that - lifestyle - choice for us. But that comes a poor second to making your own choices. Not least, they could only provide general lifestyle packages, which met a group's needs 'on average'. They may have met more of your needs than previous offerings, but like the twelve different horoscopes in the daily newspapers they could not be truly tailored to the individual. Now, we are starting to build our own lifestyles. We are deciding what things are really important to us, and are building our lives around those things. It should come as no surprise that what is important to most of us turns out not to be the label we wear on our chest.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Ignoring all the manufactured lifestyles being thrust upon you, how would you describe the real lifestyle - in terms of how you want to live your life - which means the most to you?

My advice here is simply to shop around. Look around you to see what is on offer in every field of human activity, and make your own choice. It is fair to say that your (personal) lifestyle εvolution is probably the easiest of all the revolutions you will have to pursue. If you still want to be a follower of fashion, so be it - but at least let it be your choice. If you want to be a monk, if you want to be couch potato, if you want to be a marathon runner, these too can be your choices. All you need do is decide which of all of those on offer best suits your specific aspirations. If there isn't a suitable offering available, then make it available - do your own thing and to hell with what everyone else thinks. More and more people are choosing their own unique lifestyles and respect others who do so as well. The great beauty of this approach is the freedom it offers. You have only yourself to blame if you fail and only yourself to congratulate when you succeed.

5. PORTFOLIOS OF LIFESTYLES

KEY CONCEPT
these days one lifestyle is not enough for most people, we need portfolios of different lifestyles to suit the specific occasion.

Actually, modern life is rather more complicated. Increasingly, we are seeing the emergence of portfolios of lifestyles. We are no longer happy to commit ourselves to just one lifestyle. Having thrown off the shackles of the class system, which was once the only determinant of lifestyle, we are certainly not going to be limited to just the one lifestyle the marketers choose for us. No matter how prestigious the label, or how funny the ads, we want to choose for ourselves.

In the olden days if you were working class you probably supported the closest football club, went down to the local for a pint of its draught bitter and read the Daily Mirror newspaper. More recently, much the same people have supported a premier league football club, bought Australian lager at the supermarket and read the Sun newspaper. The key development was that these were now personal choices - rather than made for them by their (class) group. Apart from that, it might seem that not much had changed, except a few names. But much more obvious changes are now on the way. Not least, these simplistic - marketer driven - choices are no longer enough for us, and the crude group identifications they imply are already disappearing.

In the UK, at least, only one part of the class system does still remain relatively unchanged - that of the upper classes. In the old days they spent their time hunting, fishing and shooting and they still do, albeit - in these days of anti-blood-sports - more discretely. Why they should derive so much pleasure from killing animals is a mystery! On the other hand, the good news is that these same upper classes are now the last group who are still imprisoned by their group lifestyle - as Diana, Princess of Wales, found to her cost. This is the price they have to pay for their inheritance. Most of us are now live much more flexible lives - happy to take our lifestyle as it comes.

Commercialised Values…indeed the first thing you need, in creating your personal εvolution, probably is a healthy degree of cynicism about commercialised lifestyles. There are now so many marketers trying to sell you their ideal lifestyles, each cynically manufactured for their maximum profit rather than your personal fulfilment, that you must assume even your own perspectives have been irretrievably contaminated. So, your first duty must be to cleanse your mind of all the insidious garbage placed there by others - so that you can decide what your needs really are.

Occasional Lifestyles…but back to portfolios. The concept behind these says quite simply that there is no longer just one lifestyle which will cover all we ever need, all of the time. Indeed, we cannot now be pinned down to even the main lifestyle we have painstakingly tailored to our needs. Instead we choose the lifestyle to fit the occasion. In the best way possible, we live for the moment. We may have a whole range of lifestyles - much as we have a variety of clothes in our closet. In reality, we probably will have only a handful - far fewer than dress styles - since it is more difficult to build each of these lifestyles than select an outfit off the rack. It is, indeed, far more demanding than matching accessories to the clothes we are wearing, for each requires almost a complete review of all aspects of your life. At the other extreme, few of us really want to have a portfolio full of contradictions. We want some balance across our choices. So the numbers of lifestyles will tend to be relatively limited, which is a good thing unless you want to cultivate multiple personalities!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How many genuinely different lifestyles do you adopt? What are they? Why do you choose them? Are any of them in conflict with others? Why is this?

Even so, it is not uncommon to already have one lifestyle for work - business-suited for the office at one extreme and uniformed for the hospital wards at another - and another for community activities - sweater and jeans for the community council or fatigues to protest at foxhunting - and yet another series of leisure lifestyles - formally dressed for the theatre and undressed for the rave. With each of these go not just the clothes but the attitude: sober business, yelling protest, vigorous dancing. All of these are quite acceptable, but they contain contradictions which would once have seemed impossible. In previous times you would have only been able to choose one of them - and even then that choice would have been made for you by the community. The bank manager would never have attended a rave, let alone a protest - yet now she often does all three without thinking about the implications; and nobody else worries. Society now happily accepts such apparent contradictions. It is up to you to choose, to meet the situation as you see it, and that tolerance is one of the most positive aspects of the new developments. It is not merely that the apparent contradictions no longer matter, it is that we don't even see them! It is perfectly acceptable to be - in the old terminology - a rabid conservative in one part of your life whilst espousing wildly progressive ideas in another. Indeed, such flexibility of mind is seen as fun - as real independence of spirit - and hooray for that!

The most important point about portfolios of lifestyles is, therefore, that you should now choose, quite deliberately, the one which best suits the occasion. You can be, almost literally, a different person for each of the various groups you belong to, and for the variety of occasions in which you involve yourself, and for the subtly different moods which accompany these. I am sorry to hammer home the analogy, but it is very much like dressing to suit the occasion. But it is much more than wearing the designer labels that fashion decrees. Indeed, it is very much richer than that. You don't just put on a superficial lifestyle like a fashion accessory - those days are now gone for most of us. The lifestyle must, instead, mean something significant to you, even if you only assume it for a matter of minutes. People are just as committed to each of these lifestyles as they once were to their class!

Flight from Mandatory Lifestyles

They are, indeed, just as committed to each of a range of lifestyles. This poses major problems for the few groups which still demand commitment to their one lifestyle. Even the upper classes are seeing defections, most influentially, at the time, that of Princess Diana. Above all, the political parties are facing insuperable problems in matching their compendium policies to the wide variety of lifestyle which now exist in the community. In particular, they cannot match the power of the single-issue groups which are much better suited to representing individuals on their own terms. Paradoxically it now probably poses fewer problems for religious movements, since they - with the notable exception of Islam - have come to accept their own positions as single-issue groups rather than the holders of establishment power they once were. As indicated above, politicians, in particular, and the parties they lead are facing the greatest loss of influence, and the greatest uncertainty; and this shows in their frantic attempts to control the uncontrollable. More and more, they feel they must offer compendium packages - from Caring Conservatism to the Third Way - to control every aspect of our lives. Yet, at the same time, they refuse to recognise that we are really demanding they hand over control to us individually. Let us ignore these over-ambitious politicians. Will no-one rid us of them!

The New Silliness of Politics…it should be obvious, in any case, that no politician can solve the irreconcilable conflicts between so many different lifestyles. The silly thing is that carry on trying, when they no longer have to. We are happy with these illogical contradictions; and they must also learn to accept them. If they don't, that will surely destroy the power they hold over us. No matter what they think, adopting portfolios of lifestyles - even seemingly contradictory ones - has now become our right. What is worse, from their point of view, this is one right which is very easy for us to claim and almost impossible for them to deny us. Just look around and see how unsuccessful they have recently been in forcing their now alien lifestyles on us. They can't even contain the use of recreational drugs, let alone legislate against single mothers. This is one battle they have already well and truly lost!

Guilt…so, I guess the best advice here is just to avoid the guilt for abandoning the past values they still hold dear. But it is they who should accept guilt, for delaying our progress to better times! Instead, as I said earlier, do your own thing; and do it to suit the specific situation! If it feels comfortable, if it is what you want to do, it's probably right for you.

Clearly some aspects of these lifestyles will require much deeper thought. For example, I earlier mentioned religion and, if you wish to base a lifestyle - or even part of a lifestyle - on such values, you will have to think long and hard about what is involved. If, on the other hand, you are planning a bit of fun - a change for one afternoon, skydiving say or an evening gambling in a casino - then why spend any time on building a new lifestyle - just go for it!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What was the lifestyle you 'selected' in answer to the earlier question? What would politicians think of your choice? Do their views worry you? Why?

Subcontracting Your Life

I mentioned earlier, in the marketer's lifestyles everything is externalised. The key to this is often the badge attached rather than the clothes themselves. In this way, you subcontract to that badge the statement of what is your lifestyle. In fact, the most important new developments now come with the internalisation of lifestyles; the new internal values people are developing. Crucially, we have talked at some length about fulfilment, and this starts with a set of goals which indeed must be internal; and are often almost religious in their intensity. It is those new values, softer values again more closely identified with women, which are the ones coming to the fore. People are realising that how they feel inside, especially in terms of their internal integrity and balance, is the most important thing in their lives. This usually has little to do with external elements. It certainly has nothing to do with conspicuous consumption - and demands no badges.

Diana Lives…interestingly, the life of Diana, the Princess of Wales, once more represents the best public example of the process which may be followed to reach this state. For a start, she was one of the very few who have escaped from the suffocating embrace of the highest levels of the upper class. So her abandonment of the previous class structure was that much more radical. It was even more dramatic because she had been selected to be the public symbol of that structure. She was ordained to be the baby-carrying wife of a king to be. It was a group lifestyle she had initially accepted, as her upbringing had trained her to do. The Queen's word really was - in her case - her command. But, as more and more of us are doing, she broke out of this prison to establish her own identity. Like most of us, the first new lifestyle she then bought into was the marketer's dream. This was a pyrrhic victory for, almost completely hidden under designer clothes, she became little more than a badge-bearing clothes-horse. Then, as her 'dream-princess' marriage deteriorated, she began to surface her real personality. She - rather than the labels - was what people then began to notice, even if she was still destined to remain the queen of fashion. Indeed, she was already developing a portfolio of lifestyles: the formal, as a princess, the fashion-plate, as the honoured guest, but even then anonymously slipping away to clubs to enjoy herself as an ordinary young-person. It was becoming ever harder for the establishment to pin her down. She was already behaving in contradiction to her role; denying her pre-ordained lifestyle. Even so, she was still the badge-marketer's ideal icon; ironically, in view of the later developments perhaps, the supreme symbol of the label conscious 1980s.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What are your thoughts about Diana's life? How did you feel when she died? How do you feel about it now?

• Is she still a symbol of the struggle for personal freedom? What lessons does her life teach you?

It was in the last few years before her death that she made her most important contribution to the development of lifestyle; to the emerging 'post-materialist' way of life. As I have described above, she moved from the superficial externalised symbols of consumption to the internalised ones of personal fulfilment. Undoubtedly she was in part escaping from her disastrous divorce, but she moved her own - and the public's - values on to those more caring ones we now accept. She hugged AIDS patients and lepers. She campaigned against land-mines. She became the symbol of the oppressed. Above all she opposed the very establishment which thought it had created her. Despite her denials, she became a political figure with a power far beyond any other member of royalty - taking on governments around the world - and she used that power for the people. Nothing could have been further from the role she had been given by the royal family. It was her own creation and - as it turned out - her lasting gift to the world. If you must have a saint to worship then make it Diana!

Her life can, then, be seen as an important model for our own freedom to come. We need something like the same courage, to move beyond our treasured possessions - to reveal, and release, our inner strengths as she did. But, beware those who would have her - and now us - merely turned into yet another marketer's icon. Her real power came from rejecting the shallowness of her former life and in moving on to fulfilling her true potential - and her destiny - as much more than an icon of our times. We should all hope to do the same - men just as much as women. Thus, in many important ways, her short life encompassed on the grand scale - as true royalty might demand - what our hopefully longer lives may also come to encompass; albeit on a much more domestic scale.

New Values

Perhaps, therefore, the key to these new lifestyle is to be found in the new values which are emerging. Fortunately, despite what many people fear, these new values are generally more wholesome than the ones they replace. On the other hand, they are typically not the ones the establishment - still steeped in the old traditions - would want you to adopt. Not least, unlike many of the previous values, they do not revolve around your uncritical support for the establishment itself. Jingoistic flag-waving on behalf of the nation-state is, for all but US citizens, very much a declining hobby.

Instead, our values are much more centred upon personal values; and in particular the soft values which are accompanying the feminisation of society - again as symbolised by Princess Diana. King and country has been replaced by friends and community. The problem, well recognised by the powers that be, is that many of these values are in effect anti-establishment. One way or another, at the end of her life Diana, Princess of Wales, herself became a very potent anti-establishment figure. That was half her appeal, reinforced by the fact that she had previously been an insider - and was now an establishment figure turned traitor to its values. But, then, so have been many other religious leaders in the past. Like them, she became the focus for anti-establishment sentiment. The crescendo of applause which swept into Westminster Abbey at the end of her brother's funeral oration was the modern equivalent of the storming of the Winter Palace. If you listened carefully, you could hear the roar, starting with the crowds of ordinary people in the distance outside the Abbey, rapidly coming nearer and then bursting into the heart of the establishment itself - overwhelming all that it surged against. Even the royal family joined in - save the queen, whose plea that 'You don't clap at funerals' had much the same ring as 'Let them eat cake'. Many in the establishment welcomed Diana's death, as it removed an irritating thorn in their side, but they should beware. In many ways she died the death of a martyr - at the hands of the media and royal establishment - and history shows that such holy deaths tend to be revenged! Our memory of her may have quickly dimmed, there is no sin for the modern media worse than being old news, but she still has become a saint for our new times.

New Society

The new sets of values match our new society, and they - not the establishment's blustering - allow us to cope with the changes taking place all around us. For example, the new tolerance of the emerging forms of married relationships, partner relationships, divorcee relationships, and sexuality in general, recognises that these have all changed to take account of very different practices. No matter how much an 'infallible' Pope may wish it, you cannot have these institutions viewed as set in stone. Over history they have regularly changed, and there is no reason why - at a time when so many other things are changing - that they should stop now. In any case, you only have to look around you, to see up to half of marriages in developed nations failing, and to realise that times really are changing. As we will see in the next chapter, perhaps they are not failing society but just the conservatism of the establishment. On the other hand, new forms are emerging which will serve us better in the new times, and the establishment is creating trouble when it demonises these. It is the leaders of society who are now the vandals, trying to destroy the very structures which are emerging to serve society better in future. It is they, and not single-mothers, who should be outlawed. The new relationships have been evolved over time, as do the best solutions to social problems, by the people themselves - to effectively deal with problems the establishment simply does not comprehend.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What do you feel about the new developments in society; about the breakdown of marriage, about single mothers, even about the emerging drug culture? Do these harm society in general, and you in particular? Why? Why not?

Drugs

Perhaps the most extreme example of this is to be seen in the establishment's response to the emerging drug culture. I am not going to take a position on the use of drugs themselves, or at least not in terms of their current, illegal, recreational usage. Indeed, it seems to me that the present illicit use poses significant dangers for the users, but not necessarily for the traditional reasons. Where drugs are bought on the street, and are subject to none of the 'quality' controls that other (pharmaceutical) drugs are, this poses real dangers of poisonous adulteration for the users. It also poses challenges for society, where so much crime originates with the need for money to feed addicts' desperate cravings. What I am saying, though, is that so many people now use soft drugs, despite the laws prohibiting their use, that the laws themselves have been brought into disrepute. Any law which proves unworkable is a bad law and as such itself threatens the very fabric of a law-abiding society. When the majority of any population ignore a law, it then is the law not the law-breakers which becomes the problem. The best example of the possible dangers was that of prohibition in the US, which is still living with us in the legacy of the mobster 'families' which thrived at that time.

Change the Laws…under these circumstances what you should do is to campaign - perhaps even by illegal actions (in this case just using the soft drugs) to get the law changed. This temporarily takes us on an excursion into the second element, the genuinely rεvolutionary part of personal εvolution.

On the other hand, you should personally be very aware that a criminal record, no matter how worthwhile the cause, can fatally damage your career! So choose carefully! It is usually many years before people honour the martyrs, but by then you may well be dead - and, if not, certainly are likely to be one of the long-term unemployed! But, if we all do our bit, the law will be changed - there is just so long that any government can hold off the forces of change. When that happens, the newly legalised drugs will become subject to quality controls, and regulation of their use, and that will save thousands who die each year because of adulteration of the supplies, not from the drugs themselves. It will also remove a major prop from a large part of the criminal fraternity's activities.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What do you think about the use of recreational drugs? Have you ever been a user yourself? Or do you think it should be criminalised?

• Do you think this is a 'war' which can be won? Is the price for winning it justifiable?

Legalised addiction…perhaps more important, in the long term, we will be able to get on with the development of more suitable drugs. The currently acceptable ones, alcohol and tobacco, have many more disadvantages - which might be avoidable in better designed new drugs. So we may not just be able to release our inhibitions, but be able to do this more safely for ourselves and others. Society may no longer have to pay the price for drunken behaviour, or secondary smoking, but will still allow us to enjoy ourselves and stimulate what aspect of behaviour is deemed most suitable to the occasion.

Drugs for Work…at the other end of the range, we may see performance enhancing drugs helping us in our work. At present pharmaceuticals are judged (literally) ethical to counter problems in our health but immoral as a boost to our existing healthy performance. There may be some justification for this in athletics, where it distorts performances. Indeed, we may eventually have to have two Olympics, one for the pure in body and one for the wonders of modern science! But there is no comparable argument against change in other spheres of human activity. We can already take Prozac to reduce our social tensions, but not to improve our social relations. Of course, we now legally take the most damaging drugs of all - alcohol and tobacco - to achieve this end!

Above all, though, we should be able to look forward to drugs - or miniaturised implants - which will improve our mental facilities by an order of magnitude. With such help, we may then all become geniuses; and who could object to that? In our new knowledge society, superman - and superwoman - will not be endowed with inhuman muscle-power, that is a hangover from the olden days since we now have machines for that, but will have incredible brain-power. And that brain-power should be used to benefit us all.

So there is every reason to campaign for a positive approach to such drug use. Indeed, it may well provide a welcome stimulus to the further development of society. After all, we have accepted physical aids to our development; where would we be without the car. Why not now, in the knowledge society, add some aids to our mental development; beyond that offered by the ubiquitous PC, which has been so uncritically accepted to do much the same job!.

Them versus Us

The point of the example of the drug society, albeit an extreme one, is that it most clearly demonstrates how the establishment can stand in the way of changes that the majority of people want; until the mass of the people overwhelms it. Maybe you find the use of drugs - even alcohol and tobacco - morally repugnant. More likely you do not see it as a burning issue at all. These days there are very few issues which will cause people to storm the barricades. But eventually, perhaps later than if we did storm the barricades but certainly more peacefully, the will of the masses will win out - as it did against prohibition.

Change Agents…one problem it does highlight, though, is the danger posed by the establishment demonising those 'change agents', the few people who do try to ease in the changes to society, to such an extent that they are forced to pay a price which is unacceptable to them. Yet, we can ill afford to discourage such change-agents. Without them society will change that much more slowly and in the process will bottle up tensions - until they explode as violently as have the revolutions of the past! The other side of the coin is that by - literally - outlawing such individuals you challenge them to use their talents against society - possibly as terrorists - instead of for it. Again that is something we can ill afford. Not least, this undermines the sanctity of the law - an even more important thing society cannot afford to happen. The law must be supported by all the people - especially by all of those it affects - if it is to be seen to be just.

As you have seen above, there may be a price to pay for becoming a change agent, for becoming a genuine εvolutionary. If, despite understanding that sad fact, you still want to make the most positive contribution to the future - and you are one of a few who are capable of standing outside of the status quo - to see the wood for the trees - then you must become such a change agent if you are to fulfil your potential. In reality it is an option available to very few of us. Most of us are so immersed in the status quo that we bump into the first tree in our path. Seeing clearly is a remarkably difficult art to acquire.

Outlaws

It is perhaps easier if you are already outside society. In earlier times a foreigner or a Jew or a homosexual was more likely to enjoy the dubious advantage of becoming a change agent. In that the unfortunate position you were much less likely to be ensnared by the blandishments of a society which had already cast you aside. If, on the other hand, you are an ordinary mortal - like the rest of us - I would suggest you try to obtain at least part of that dubious privilege, by developing a degree of healthy cynicism. In the first instance you will have to assume that most of the facts presented to you, and all the theories, have been distorted to suit the agenda of someone in power - with an axe to grind - who is passing those ideas to you. Needless to say, this is usually someone in the establishment. You probably have already learned to discount everything politicians say to you. But you should do the same for the media, especially that popular newspaper you read on your way to work! They are almost all after control of our minds. So keep them out as you would do any other harmful virus!

Beyond that the actively pursue your own viewpoint - unsullied by such pollution. If you want to go further into this subject, there are some excellent books and courses about 'creative thinking'. Even then be careful. Some of these are just as desperate to gain control of your mind!

Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll

As a final, perhaps irreverent, footnote to this section on lifestyles and values, at a recent meeting of futurologists we were discussing - with due solemnity - the best possible futures in terms of 'sustainability' - the in-word at the time. Probably to relieve the general air of worthiness, one of the participants threw in the comment that '…all my children can think about is sex, drugs and rock & roll…' I imagine this was meant as a joke, but it immediately initiated some crucial new trains of thought. The first of these was that, in the context of 'sustainability', there surely could be no 'greener' future than this. None of these activities make serious demands on the physical resources we were worrying about. If this was to be the future then it would resolve many of the problems that over-development had caused.

The second reaction, which came much later, was to question what was to be the future in general. It is unlikely to be just sex, drugs and rock & roll, but it is quite likely to be created from intangible building blocks which are very similar to these. Not least, despite the strictures of the prudes, in general sex drugs and rock & roll have few impacts on others but provide great entertainment for the participant. Our future lifestyles are likely, in general, to be much more fun, and certainly much more fulfilling. But that is up you to choose - and then demand!

Lifestage

Paradoxically perhaps, in terms of lifestyle the most important factor typically now influencing it is the lifestage of the individual. If you are a single young adult, or someone with a couple of young children or a couple with the children off their hands and money to burn, clearly your lifestyles are likely to be very different. This is obvious to most people, but is rarely taken into account by those in the establishment who are responsible for the future of society. Marketers are in the minority who have at last recognised the need to take this into account.

Why are marketers, probably the most despised of the new professionals, so prophetic? Perhaps, in this respect at least, they are our new outsiders: the Jews for our age!

Even then marketers still typically use age, rather than lifestage, as the key element in their considerations - and a thirty year old single male probably has very different needs to a thirty year old single mother with two young children!

Otherwise, almost everyone who is responsible for our shared futures, managers of every shape and form, steadfastly avoids taking into account the effects of age. In particular, employers seem to assume that their workers are the very same people at sixty as they were at twenty. Yet we all know, from our own experience, that this is rubbish! It is self-evident that older people behave differently to younger people - so why does society not recognise this, beyond the now traditional separating off of the young, children at school, and the old, as pensioners.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Thinking back over your own 'history', how have your 'career' needs changed as you have gone through various lifestages; not least from single individual to family member? How has your life overall changed?

But, as those marketers are finding out, lifestage can be much more subtle than we have previously allowed for. We have, for the past century or so, recognised the different lifestage requirements of children, though it is less than half a century since teenagers - now a massive market - were discovered by record companies. In much the same way, though, pensioners have been with us for a long time. Yet it is only in the past decade or so that suppliers have started to exploit 'grey markets'. What are less well recognised are the gradations which, between the two extremes, occur within a person's working life.

It is useful to examine these various stages separately, not least so that you can recognise for yourself the likely logic of the lifestage approach to the development of our working lives in a future society:

1) EXPLORERS - the first stage of our modern working life generally starts after education is completed - though for many people, especially those attending university, that can now stretch well into their 20s.

This stage, typically revolving around the first few jobs, is a time of justified exploration; where we decide for ourselves the shape of our life to come. It is likely to take a form these days which incorporates a great deal of sexual experimentation, as well as trial runs of different lifestyles and, in particular, with different forms of work; that is to say different jobs. The key aspect of all of this is that it is experimentation. Everything is temporary. Change is endemic. Moving on to new jobs, and to new partners, is very much part of the experimental lifestyles which develop. At this age we are simply trying on a variety of futures for size! Thank goodness that the establishment seems now to have recognised that the young almost have a duty to rebel.

The first major change in our working lives typically comes when a permanent relationship is developed, with just one partner. The days of experimentation are over - the die is cast.

2) PARENTS - in particular, and most important of all, the crucial change is when a child appears. That is possibly the most dramatic change in lifestyle that any of us experiences. One day you are an 'experimental', the next you are a doting father or mother - a 'parent' - and you have a responsibility which changes almost every value you hold dear. It imposes a lifestyle which revolves much more around the need for stability. Above all, the key requirement is for a steady job. But, yet again, this responsibility for a family is taking new forms. Partnerships may now be just as binding, or supportive, of the family as marriage used to be. If only the establishment could come to terms with that!

This is also the work lifestage which seems to set the model for all of us - throughout our working lives - at least as seen by the establishment. That is surely a mistake!

3) SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS - some time, much later when the children have grown up, and have left the house, our lifestyle changes yet again - though perhaps not so suddenly. The two individuals, the partners usually involved - no longer mother and father but now just partners, probably still husband and wife - have the opportunity to develop a very different set of lifestyles. Some academics refer to them as 'empty nesters' - their young have flown the nest - but I think this underestimates the degree to which these partners can then take an 'entrepreneurial' view of their lives. They are now free to use their assets and experience to do anything they want!

KEY CONCEPT
even though society currently seems determined to throw them on the scrap-heap, those in the 'social entrepreneur' stage can actually become the most fulfilled members of it.

This has only recently been recognised, and even marketers are barely starting to cater for this. Yet, in many respects, this may now be the most potent stage of our lives. We are no longer constrained by the requirement to provide a stable home for a family. We can fulfil themselves in ways we never thought possible. We can grow, and enrich our lives, over the next few decades, to the point at which we move into retirement. In the context of this book, people at this stage in their lives may now become the new εvolutionaries described in the chapters to come. They have the independence, and time, to become the new activists. The key aspect, though, is that retirement from active work may well be much later than we now allow for - always assuming that our lifestyles have been allowed to change in such a way that continuation of work is still acceptable. This implies some new form of work, more suitable to this lifestage has been found. If this is the case, we may well work well past the age of 70 years and be happy to do so.

4) RETIREES - beyond this, even retirement has gradations of lifestage; from the quite active early stages of the retirement holiday to the later years which require a great deal of additional support.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Remembering the answers you gave to the last set of questions, what lifestage are you now in? Having read my comments, are you making the most of this lifestage? Why not??

The important aspect of this all this is not the details of what happens at what time in one's life. These can vary from person to person, from generation to generation and from culture to culture. The important point to note is that our lives change - often quite dramatically - from lifestage to lifestage. This is something that is rarely taken into account, not least by the people planning our lives. It is just as rarely taken into account by individuals, such as us.

Within each of these lifestages, we typically only see what afflicts us within that lifestage; what opportunities are available to us at that point in time. I guess the main message I would like to get across about lifestages is that you should really recognise how these shape the whole envelope of your life. In particular you should prepare for each lifestage ahead of time. In this way, the changes from one stage to the next should not come as a shock to you. This may be difficult to do when you're experimenting in your first job, though perhaps even then you should keep at the back of your mind the thought that some day you may have children - and this will demand a steady job. Then, when you are in that steady job, you should prepare to move on later to something more fulfilling, in the later lifestages. In particular, in moving to the final, more fulfilling, work lifestages - as the new 'social entrepreneurs' - you may well need significant amounts of education to prepare you for this. Finally you will go into retirement, and these days the financial preparations for a comfortable retirement may well need to start very early, even during the 'explorer' stage when it may be the last notion people have in their minds!

In the last two chapters, you should have found lots of material about the likely changes in your future to help you fill in the details of your personal map. You should have also started to identify some of the changes you will need to initiate to develop your personal potential.

In the next two chapters we widen the perspective, to look at your relationships with the others around you.

6. THE CONTEXT - CHANGING FAMILY, CHANGING COMMUNITY, CHANGING VALUES

Before we see how the Internet Revolution in particular is changing our working lives, we need to set these individual lives in the context of how our shared family lives are also changing. For once, however, the problems here are largely due to factors other than the advent of the Internet. As we will see in the next chapter, the new electronic communications media may even be the salvation of family life. The problems come about, instead, because of the disruption of social patterns our ancestors once thought were immutable.

Thus, for many individuals, the most important change they now see taking place around them will be the destruction of the family, or rather I should say the seeming destruction of the family, as the basic building block in their lives.

Happy Families…this is, though, not a fundamental breakdown, which many commentators suggest is happening, but merely a change in the way the structure of the family is organised. It is just one symptom of a wider process.

In any case, what we now describe as a traditional family - mother, father and a couple of children - has only existed for less than half a century; in North America and Northern Europe. The extended family which existed previously still does so in most other countries, including Southern Europe. In such extended families, it is not just the two generations, parents and children, living together, but three or more generations - along with other relatives - living together in close proximity.

Hollywood Families

Thus, the accepted 'tradition' of the nuclear family really is something of the myth, perpetrated most notably by Hollywood. In its fictional stories the 'normal' family is almost always seen as the nuclear family, which must cause some confusion for the new viewers of satellite channels across the developing world where the extended family still holds sway.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• What is the situation in your own family? Have you, or a member of your family, had a previous relationship which broke down? If so, what is the relationship with that partner now?

• What are your relationships with your wider family - siblings, children, step-children, cousins…? What does this say about the negative aspects of modern society and, more important, about the positive developments in it?

Nuclear Disintegration

More important, even in the US and Northern Europe, the pure nuclear family started disintegrating almost as soon as it became the mythical repository of our family values. It was destroyed, not least, by the new mobility required of Western workers, much as had also been the earlier fate of the extended family. Whilst exhorting the people to stick by traditional family values, the leaders of society simultaneously exalted the very contrary virtues of more flexible employment - and in particular those of 'moving to where the work was'. If the bread-winner of the family did exactly that, it was not surprising that the structure of the family was damaged. Very similar stresses were imposed by the new 'joys' of long-distance commuting; which resulted in the disruption of weekday family life just as much as did actual separation.

In turn, the children, as they came of working age, were thrown into the geographical melting pot - by the need to obtain scarce employment. They had to separate themselves from their parent's household - as they never had to before - even during the 'explorer' lifestage. With increased wealth, this even became the new 'model'. Thus, even if they worked in the same neighbourhood as their parents, children could not wait to get their own home and move out of their parents' one. No matter how little sense it made, economically or socially, this became a new rite of passage. Whatever the reasons, the nuclear family only fulfilled even the role of a partial model for less than one generation. Then the whole thing fell apart.

Indeed, the traditional model of the family, be it nuclear or extended, crucially depends upon people living in close proximity; and usually in the same household. Where they are spread across the continents, as they now may be, the same forces cannot work as well. This tendency has been reinforced by social change. One has only to think of the current gap between IT-literate teenagers and their IT-illiterate parents to get an idea of how large the inter-generation gaps are becoming.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How have the relationships between members of your own family changed over recent decades?

New Building Blocks… if we want a generalised solution which can be built up from a new nuclear family, one which will cover most of society including the new structures we are seeing emerge, that generic building block can now only contain the mother and two children. If we try to once more include the father as part of this, that will now exclude too many families from society. If, however, we think of just the mother and two children, as the basic building block, this - in combination with the other individuals who may be involved - can be formed into almost every structure you might like to see. It certainly allows for everything we are now seeing, from single parent families through to vastly extended families and even communities - such as kibitzes - living together. To put it at its simplest, we cannot avoid the fact that the bond between a mother and her children is the strongest relationship most of us will ever come across. That does, of course, pose the question of what now happens to the father?

Absent Fathers…clearly, for the father, if the relationship is close and long-lasting, much as it used to be and in particular if it is contractually defined in the form of marriage, then something like the previous nuclear family - with mother, father and two children - can be seen to still work. But that now must be seen to be just one of the new forms, not - as in the past - the only acceptable one. The new building blocks provide the possibility of a wide range of family structures which typically, in extended family form, offer a richer menu of choices for future family life. Related to these are going to be many new family values, and that too is going to pose problems for the traditionalists.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How might your own extended family, and those of your friends, be built from such a building 'block'?

Family Values

Despite all these changes, family values are still going to be at the core of our overall values - since we are looking at a personal εvolution rather than a societal one. These will be the values - such as those of fairness, sympathy, empathy, charity which have also been the values increasingly espoused by society. But they will no longer be supplemented by the loaded values previously demanded from group members: loyalty to the firm, patriotism for country, solidarity of the group etc. We are no longer willing to die for our country unless someone gives us a very good reason - exactly as it should be. The establishment, who in recent times have conspicuously not themselves died for their own countries, but have sent many others to do so, can do their own dirty work in future!

Private Values...with the move to individual empowerment, which gives you the right to live your life exactly as you choose to, values will, in any case, become an increasingly private matter - albeit shared with the rest the community. What these new values may be, though, has yet to be fully established. As one example, however, some of the new values which seem to be emerging have almost religious connotations. Paradoxically, many of the values adopted by the drug culture fall into this category.

Co-operation…in particular, though, there will be a general move from competitive - combat-driven - to co-operative - value driven - approaches in the commercial world, especially those trading in ideas across the Internet. Co-operation is much more in keeping with the demands of the emerging markets. The new start-ups look much more like universities than factories - and the lifestyles their staff aspire to are coming to be more like those of the senior common room than of the factory-floor assembly line!

This is another area where you can exert direct power. Insist that your own organisation signs up to a set of ethical codes that you - and your fellow-workers - respect. If it won't, then blow the whistle on it. You will be surprised by how sensitive most organisations now are to accusations that their code of ethics is tainted. Shell, for example, was severely damaged by the fiasco of dumping its Brent Spar oil-rig even though, as it later turned out, it was probably in the right! Monsanto even had to rebrand itself when its rather cynical launch of GM products undermined the reputation of the whole group!

Money is Not the Only Objective

The key symbol of the change in values is likely to be the move away from the commitment to money, as the only worthwhile objective for both organisations and individuals. Apart from the United States, where the philosophy is probably too ingrained, the pursuit of money for its own sake is declining. Certainly flaunting it, not least in the form of conspicuous consumption - almost a touchstone of success during the 1980s, will probably be judged to be in the worst possible taste.

As part of this overall process, and coupled with the increasing power of supra-national bodies, we should see the neutering of the financial services sector. It has been responsible for many of the worst uncertainties of our time, ripping off vast amounts of money for the speculators it offers a home to. At the other extreme, the global reduction in inequality will lead to the expansion of the number of new markets.

Radical New Values…what is especially surprising is that there has been little recognition of the fact that a radically new set of values is emerging. Why has this been so ignored? The fact that a massive change is taking place should be obvious, at least to those of us in the wider population exposed to it. Yet in recent times, debate - such as it has been - has revolved around a loss of values rather than the creation of the new values which we can see taking place around us. We - in particular the establishment - choose to see declining morals, breakdown of the family, lack of responsibility, lack of group loyalties, increasing crime and so on. 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. I suppose, such confusion is typical of a period of revolutionary change. On the other hand, rather than trying to outdo each other in our pessimism about the future, personal εvolution should be largely about developing, agreeing and setting those new values.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Have you observed the values of society changing? Do you - nostalgically - view this with some alarm, or do you positively welcome the new opportunities?

In truth this is nothing really new. It has already happened a number of times before. The earlier changes were, however, more immediately obvious. They were typically the result, in earlier times, of values being imposed by conquerors from outside of society, as the Norman's imposed their own culture and language on the Anglo-Saxons in England, or by new groups gaining dominance from within society, as the Communists re-wrote life in Russia. The difference is now that the driving forces are hidden.

Perhaps the links between these new individuals - that's us - and our societies are best seen by looking at some examples:

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

The rule here is develop your own value sets. Think through what are the core values you want to sign up for. Do not, under any circumstances, accept them second-hand from anyone else!

Community. On the other hand, this also means we will have to renegotiate our links with the communities to which we belong, and to reshape and re-create those communities. Once more, the attempts by the establishment to stem the changes which are taking place do not help. Much better to let the new forces emerge, even if we are as yet uncertain as to what they might be. So, as I suggested earlier, encourage the experiments. Maybe even take part!

Family. As the discussion above has indicated, the important point to note is that the family is evolving new forms rather than breaking down. This is, however, where the establishment - the various religious establishments just as much as a political ones - can be especially damaging in its defence of the status quo. The demonisation of those pioneering the new forms - be they single parents, divorcees or social workers - distracts our attention from recognising and supporting the new structures

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How do you currently measure up to these challenges? What might you do in future to address your shortcomings

New versus Old

Perhaps the greatest impact of changing values comes not from what they are, or what they are to become, but from the friction between the new and the old. This is compounded by the desperation of the establishment, promoting its embattled values in an uncertain age. Many of our current problems and fears come from such attempts to, King-Canute-like, hold back the tide of social developments.

Experimentation…in reality it is likely that experimentation will be a major source of ideas for the shape of the new family - and community - structures. In recent times the one period of greatest experimentation in this field was probably that of the 1960s, and the results have had a long-lasting impact on the general consciousness - from the nostalgic memories of Camelot, felt by many radicals, to being the source of all the woes of modern society, as perceived by many conservatives in the establishment.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Where we you, or your parents, in the 1960s? Did you, or they, attend any of the revolutionary events which took place then? What happened to your (or their) hopes for a better future? Were you, they, foolish to believe in the vision of a better future for all?

Whatever you may think of the events in the 1960s, the radicals of that time did at least initiate some experiments. We now need many more experiments to take place; to find a lifestyle, or rather the many lifestyles, suitable for our shared futures. The sad thing is that the establishment focuses on the failures of experiments, and uses them to condemn the whole process. But any scientific experiment is bound to result in many more failures than successes. That is the essential nature of the process; and as much should be learned from the failures as from the successes. So, tolerate these experiments. Indeed encourage them.

It seems likely, however, that whatever the outcome of these experiments, the power the father holds within the family will now be outweighed by that held by the mother. Where the father used to be the head of the family, the mother has now assumed that role.

Empty Nests…ultimately, of course, when the children leave the nest the basic rationalisation for the nuclear 'family' must break down. You are then left with two individuals living together, as partners probably as husband and wife, in a quite different relationship. It is, indeed, one which might be very different to the one with which they started out married life. A number of years into the marriage, or partnership, that relationship may well be much more fragile. It not just that the romance may have disappeared, but they will have had time to develop their own separate interests and these may no longer parallel those of their partner.

The traditional contract - which was marriage sanctified for life - has now become a much more of a civil contract which just lasts for the period in which the two partners attain mutual benefit from it. But, as such, it is no longer necessarily for the whole of the partner's life. As in any commercial partnership once the benefits disappear then that partnership may well be liquidated - in this case by divorce.

The Web Saves

The advent of the web of electronic communications may, however, save many such partnerships which would otherwise founder on the rocks of differing life interests. Where previously the partners would have been forced to go their separate physical ways, outside of their shared home, to find others with a shared interest, these are now just a click away on the Internet. In this way the 'intellectual' urges may be satisfied without a transference of emotional ties - especially when those communicating are physically located on opposite sides of the world. This may save not a few long-time partnerships from dissolution.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How have any 'empty nesters' you know coped with their transition to this state?

Original Sin

Of course, a number of decades ago this spiritual partnership, sanctified by the Church, was in fact legally unbreakable. So - unsurprisingly - fewer divorces then came about. That made it remarkably difficult for partners to do anything other than continue living together. It also meant that many marriages continued under conditions that would be totally unacceptable to modern individuals. These strictures applied just as much in advance of marriage as later. Pre-marital sex, which is almost universal now, was then also a sin. Accordingly, it was entered upon by very few individuals - or at least was evidenced publicly by very few of them. In particular it was not admitted to by other than a very few girls. A girl who acquired a 'reputation' had her life ruined by that single fact!

These traditional social contracts have widely broken down. Where previously such emotional relationships were the reward which could only be attained by entering into a lifelong contract, now something approaching this - or at least the sexual gratification it offers - may last a few minutes, a few hours, perhaps a few months. More important, the pleasures are just as easily attainable outside of marriage, in a society which - I think justifiably - sees them as matters for individuals rather than for government or even the Church.

Lifestages in Marriage…perhaps a more fundamental problem of relationships over any extended period of time is - as we saw in the discussion on life-stages - the changes coming about in what people want out of the life, and especially in terms of what they want out of their partners. These may change dramatically as they go through life. This is a factor which was much less important when lifespans were shorter, and death terminated the relationship well before the later lifestages posed problems. But now, as average lifespans are approaching a century, these changes become that much more important. Where the average marriage previously lasted perhaps 20 or 30 years it may now last more than 60 years. Indeed, an interesting observation is that the average length of a marriage has remained more or less the same over recent centuries. The difference is that, where in earlier generations it was ended by the death of one of the partners, it may now be ended by divorce.

Even in a relatively static society, people's attitudes, desires and interests, can change quite dramatically over such a long period of time. In our own society, which is changing very rapidly, one can easily see just how difficult it may be to maintain a marriage over so many decades. It is therefore quite possible that partnerships over the whole of life - especially of 'romantic' marriages - may in future become the exception rather than the rule; as the partners will move on to new lifestyles. As they gradually drift apart, however, they may well remain good friends. Indeed having lived together for a number of decades they may remain very good friends - even living in the same household. It is interesting to note that the one 'successful' relationship in the otherwise disastrous family affairs of the British Royal Family, that of the Duke and Duchess of York, follows this pattern.

The Power of Personal Relationships

Even so, such personal relationships with close family members, by marriage or by a partnership, will almost certainly continue to represent - for most people - the most important element of a happy life. In our brave new society, however, almost anything goes. It is up to you to shape your life, and especially to shape this very personal part of your life. Within quite broad limits, your sexuality and sexual preferences will be your own to decide, on the basis of what you gives you the greatest pleasure, makes you happiest, or possibly even fulfils you. There are still limits, but those limits are no longer set by the prudishness of society. Indeed, this is where the Internet may be having some considerable impact. The 'chat rooms', which were so important in the growth of AOL's multi-billion dollar business, are still dominated by the business of (remote) sexual encounters. Only those, such as the activities of paedophiles, which have a damaging impact on other people are still seen to be unacceptable. But within those broad limits there are many, very many, different lifestyles possible

The only caveat I would point out is that sex itself - which is so often portrayed as the cornerstone of a 'happy marriage' - may well no longer be central to life-long relationships. In a society where sex is almost as freely available as a discrete kiss used to be the old days, it no longer has the power to be the glue which holds marriages or partnerships together. You will have to find other things beyond the merely physical. In any case, as life-long relationships are now so extended that even sexual potency may fade. If it is to last full lifetime, no marriage and no partnership will be able to depend just upon physical attraction.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How have your views on sexual matters changed over recent years? How do you feel about the new sexual freedoms?

The New Marriage Contract

Accordingly, the new family has to work very much like any other form of human organisation, based on a contract between the two people - along with their children - who wish to share their lives. It will succeed just as long as the outcome of their shared life proves to be better than their two separate lives. That is easy to achieve in a cheap novelette, but it is very difficult to make work in real life. There are moves afoot to educate people even in this area - and that has to be welcomed, though I would hate to be the teacher. But the very length of life, and the changes that people undergo as pass go through its stages, poses a massive problem for all of us. We all change our views over time. Throughout my life I've regularly changed my interests. Partly this was because I got bored with the old interest and partly it was because I fell in love with a new interest. And it is very difficult to take a partner along with you through all these changes in direction. That means, if our new partnerships are to survive throughout our lives, we will have to develop new forms of them which are much more neutral in the way they work.

Post Break-Up…even if it breaks down, however, it seems likely that - in the newly emerging form of extended families - the partners will still keep in touch. Equally, there is no good reason why the individuals involved should be demonised by society. Instead, the events should be viewed in a positive light, simply as a matter of changing relationships. So society, just as much as the individuals, has to understand and encourage the new relationships - in order that that everyone involved can come to terms with them. Condemning the separated participants is helpful to nobody - and is certainly not helpful to a society where the majority of its members may ultimately experience this.

Such a breakdown must no longer to be seen as a failure, and certainly not as a sin, but as a normal part of a developing society. The onus, therefore, is on society to provide the moral and psychological support, and possibly even the financial support, for the people who are going through these changes.

VITAL QUESTIONS

• How do you feel about the victims of such break-ups; the children, but also the previous partners? How have any family or friends, who have gone through this, coped?

What is a Family?

All of us must be much more open-minded about what constitutes a family. In particular we must be more generous-minded about what constitutes an acceptable - if not ideal - pattern of family life over time. We should also avoid castigating, as immoral or sinful, those who are exploring the new forms of family structure, since they are the new pioneers of the structures on which we will build future society and we should encourage them to try and develop these to meet the demands of our new age. In any case, we have little alternative. In the new atmosphere of the individual empowerment, they have every right to do as they please!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Do you feel under any pressure to conform to traditional family structures and values?

• How unfair do you think this pressure is? How productive is in strengthening your relationships?

New Extended Families

One a new form of family structure contains many of the previous ingredients - not least the blood relatives. Seen from the children's perspective, they all still have a mother, father, aunts, uncles and grandparents. The only significant difference is rather less contact with the blood-father. On the other hand, if the father had previously been working away, or was subject to long distance commuting, the difference even then might not be very noticeable to them. But in addition to that, these children - and it makes most sense if you look at it from the children's perspective - also have their new step-relationships. They have the new partners of their mother and with them quite often relationships with the new partner's previous wife and the children of that marriage. So potentially, if you positively grasp the opportunity, you regain many of the benefits of the old extended family. The new extended family can, in this way, start to approach the size and richness of the extended family of previous times.

With the coming about of universal electronic communications, even before video-chats over the internet become common-place, the effect of geographical separation amongst family members may be reduced. The father may then still be able read the children a bed-time story from a continent away!

One Point Something Children…one thing I haven't mentioned, of course, is that the number of children - in any form of nuclear family - has fallen dramatically. Indeed, in many countries the numbers have fallen below the two children per family needed for replacement of the population - so that we may look forward to some populations actually declining in future, even with the increase in longevity factored in. This compares with perhaps more than half a dozen children in earlier times, so that then even the nuclear family had many more connections. With the other members of the extended family, aunts uncles grandparents, this could have extended to as many as 20 or 30 people. Only with the different forms of families now emerging are the numbers in the new extended family beginning to rise again.

This allows a much enhanced richness of relationship, across a range of blood- and step-relationships. It allows children a wider range of contacts to draw on, and in particular of models to emulate. In this new environment your father may be a manager, but a very influential step-uncle may be an artist or playwright or vicar. On the other hand, it will only appear rapidly enough to counter the problems being encountered by the old nuclear family if we do not demonise them. Instead, we must all encourage them and applaud their successes. You never know, you may soon find yourself in a similar position. Indeed, the odds are about even that you will!

It is arguable that the richness of these relations poses few problems for the children involved. Indeed they seem almost to revel in them. Rather it is the tension that comes from a mother and father, forced by society to become enemies in a divorce, which poses the real problems for children. The children are then forced to decide which of the warring factions they will support and, in so doing, they feel guilty that they have committed the other to be an enemy rather than a loving parent.

Individual Solutions

You will gather that I believe that society in general - and the governments in particular - does have responsibilities towards the community. In particular, it has responsibilities in terms of setting values. But the future of any family represents one issue where I believe we should all step back, and allow the individuals to develop their own solutions, to their own relationships; though society should provide the support structures which allow such relationships to develop productively. The only caveat I would impose is that, in setting up the support structures, society doesn't once again prejudge what the shape of these new extended families ought to be. If the support structures have built into them rules for, or against, the different values then they will almost certainly be overtaken by events.

EComms…surprisingly, one of the greatest advances which will benefit development of these relationships is the further development of the new communications media which have emerged with the e-Revolution. This may initially be in the form of our emails over the Internet, but ultimately it will be in the form of person-to-person television communications. Let's look at that last one first, since it represents the ideal. You will have a wall-size television screen, possibly offering a 3-dimensional picture, which will allow you almost to believe that the person you are talking to is in the same room - taking part in a normal conversation - just as if you really were physically there together. While this is happening, the two of you may actually be on opposite sides of the world. Yet this will not be apparent to either of you, and after the first few seconds you probably will not even notice the television screen itself. It will be exactly the same as any normal conversation between old friends. Not only that, but it will be so cheap that there will be no bar to such communication. You will not think twice about making that half-hour 'visit' to your great-aunt in Australia! This contrasts with the best that is available at the moment, which is the rather impersonal facility of the telephone. Even then, it is probably the very high costs of international calls which most discourage the use of this.

The prime evidence for this is to be found not in my generation, not even in my children's generation, but in that of their children - those now growing up. Those now in their late teens they a very different relationship to the electronic media and through them to their friends.

Over my own life the links I have had with friends, and even with relatives, have been stretched to the point of destruction as I have followed the job market around the country, and occasionally around the world. Where the only contact under these circumstances was a letter, and though I am a prolific author even I am not a great letter writer, it is not surprising that over time these relationships have faded. I have been fortunate in making many friends, but - like many of my generation - I have been equally unfortunate in losing them as we were carried apart by the tides of our lives. I have now reached the stage where I keep track of some of my old friends only by seeing them being interviewed on television! I am not even certain that, if I contacted them personally, they would any longer recognise me - or remember me. Probably they feel much the same when they see me on television!

Everlasting Chat…however, the latest generation, currently in their teens but already very computer literate (and beyond), has a solution to this problem. Even if they see their friends at school, during the day, when they get home they immediately start to talk with them again. They do this not on the telephone, as in the days of my youth girls - though strangely not boys - used to monopolise the family's one phone link to the outside world. Now they do it through email and this time boys do it as well. This may not seem much of an advance, but the impact comes when they graduate from school and move to universities far away, and then on to employment which may be the other side of the world. Now, using email, the latest generation does continue frequent contact - even under these circumstances when the group is dispersed across the globe.

The power this development has, in terms of holding extended families together, should not be underestimated. My daughter 'chats' over the Internet most of every evening with her partner who is working 500 kilometres away during the week. Perhaps this is due to the essentially free nature of email. Perhaps it's because of its 'asynchronous' nature. You don't have to find your friends at home to talk to them - or at least leave a long message for them - but can still have an answer within hours They even arrange 'national' face-to-face reunions to add that all-important touchy-feely element - which maintains their relationships. In future even electronic contacts may be warmed up by the addition of cheap video conferencing. So, paradoxically in view of the predictions that electronic networks would destroy personal contacts, the Internet may prove to be the one thing that helps maintain such friendships throughout life - even with our very mobile lifestyles. In this context, the concept of the global village really does have some meaning!

VITAL QUESTIONS

• Do you regularly 'chat' (or at least exchange emails) over the Internet? Do your children, or those of friends and family? How does this affect your/their lives?

Thus, whilst I may sympathise with the fears expressed that it will be much more difficult to make friendships in the new electronic world, and even that friendships made over the Internet can never replace face-to-face ones, I suspect that this represents far too pessimistic a view of the future. I think that society will be significantly enriched by the wide variety of new relationships which will be enabled by the different electronic media. Think positive, and start to build all those new relationships. This personal aspect of the e-Revolution, at least, will be very easy and very rewarding.