MICROSTORY OF ART

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Dedicated to the Atlas Syndrome, again

(Picture: DS)

Atlas Syndrome 2

(14.8.2023) Is it wrong to care for the big whole, the earth, the planet, the creation? Certainly not. On the contrary. We live in an age in which it is probably responsible to care for the big whole, since humans are capable to affect, even to destroy the big whole. And still, it seems very ambitious to care for the big whole. While we are sensing that we have to carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. With our actions. Which, again, are affecting the big whole. This situation we might call the era of the Atlas syndrome. Sensing, even seeing that we, all the human individuals, have to consider the effects of our actions on the big whole, we still are sensing that this responsibility is rather too much for the single human being. And still the zeitgeist is watching us, demanding that we take responsibility. With our actions. That we have to carry the weight of the world on our shoulders.

One) Models of the Big Whole

Having just watched a documentary on European climate activists I am rather disappointed, even a little bit shocked, about the simplicity of their models. Models? What models?
Well, humans base their understanding of the world and of society on models. For example some climate activists seem to think that their operation of taking down the portraits of the president in various town halls might result in a sort of »showball effect«, due to which, suddenly a majority in society might be inclined to pressure the president of the republic to take more actions against climate change.
This is only an example of a model, a model of political change, or of change in society. And this model is certainly, at least in my view, a very simplicstic, even naive model. Since many voters have voted for the president, and many groups in society do not agree that the president would have to consider certain actions, and organized interests in society are working for other interests than doing more to prevent climate change. Finally: many people are just busy to live their lives and will not even take notice of such symbolical actions. In other words: some models seem to be based rather on wishful thinking, revolutionary romanticism and so on. And a convincing theory of social change, of political change, seems to be lacking.

Two) Steering the Big Whole – Experiencing Change

In view of all this it is interesting to recall the game of Ökolopoly that the author, scientist and public intellectual Frederic Vester came up with in the early 1980s. It is a game that presents a player with the opportunity, or the challenge, to steer the big whole, which is modelled in the game as a system in which change in one subsystem is affecting the other subsystems and also the big whole. The player is observing (and potentially learning) how his actions affect the big whole, which is simulated by this game.
It is interesting to note that in the early 1980s the notion of ›sustainability‹ was still unknown to most people. And what Vester presented us with was network-thinking, cybernetics and so on. But the notion of sustainability was not a part of that system of thinking. Perhaps the idea was, but the notion was introduced to the public, made popular, only some years later.
Which means that, apart from the many questions this simulation of the big whole might raise – for example: is it true that more ›enlightenment‹ has certain effects on society, and: do we know ›enlightenment‹ at all, if we see it? always? and is it wanted? –, apart from such questions which are on some level answered by the game, since the game is operating on the basis of such answers, apart from all that we might ask: what about the horizon of the rather distant future, which the notion of sustainability is implying? Is the future horizon also simulated in this game? And further: are humans inclined at all to take this horizon into consideration, and are humans able to do that, based on models. Or is this too ambitious by definition. Brief: What about the paradox of having to care for the big whole, while we are sensing that the big whole is too complex to understand. Perhaps some people do, but most people probably do not. And the models of the big whole seem to be in constant change, as is ecological and sustainability and economic thinking. As we see in Ökolopoly. Due to the notion of sustainability lacking.

Three) In View of All This

What might be a resonable consequence of all this? What is there to do, if indeed we might be living in an age of the Atlas syndrome? Well, first of all such diagnosis might make everyone (at least potentially) a little bit more modest, and it might also to take some pressure of the single individual that might feel that such burden is simply too much. And a good consequence might also be to rethink the models of the big whole that we have, and to ask: who did write these models? Who did write these games, and how does the thinking develop on which these games are based on. Further it would seem resonable that also people actively seeking change (activists) would (constantly) rethink their notions, their models of political and social change. And a reasonable direction might be to replace revolutionay romanticism with more concrete and resonable aims. The question, for example, what climate justice is, might be complex in itself. What justice, we might ask, and for whom? And how to implement such justice on a global level? And how to work for the next steps? Finally the question of enlightenment: what is it, after all, enlightenment? How can we tell enlightenment from state propaganda (Ökolopoly is being played from the perspective of the government, the president). Who does invest in enlightenment? And how does it reach people? Ökolopoly, as complex as it is, it is still undercomplex. But this does not say that it is a bad game. It might help, even if it seems to be a little bit outdated, to raise many interesting and important questions. And besides: it has contributed to the iconography of sustainability. With the game board which I am showing above (in which I particularly do like the ping-pong-players, that are associated, in this context, with ›quality of life‹). Models are, in our era, usually visual models. And these models indeed help our thinking, and make the theories more graspable that our everyday thinking might be based on.

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS