Richard Sennett on Cooperation – Free Ebook

how we view me involved emissions I should begin by saying how thrilled I am to be here tonight I’d have read Richards books and follow his lectures and essays for many many years so it’s wonderful for me to have this chance to talk to him this evening at first a few words about how we’re going to organize it and we’re here as you know to discuss Richards latest book together and he is going to speak about the key themes in the book we even have a conversation about it and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask questions to Richard before we break and he will kindly do the book signing so over to Richard who’s going to discuss the key things in the book I want to tell you a little about this book and in a way I hope that the book is not what people expect sort of your first impression of a book about about cooperation might be how to get everybody on the same page to work together as a team like you know rolling together in a scull about cooperation this kind of coordination of everybody contributing their might to get something done that’s not what I mean by cooperation I was interested in a different kind of problem which is how do you cooperate with people who are different from you people you don’t know you don’t like maybe that you disagree with which is a much more adult kind of problem of cooperation I live in a very complicated society with lots of difference in it and how do people reach across those bonds of difference to be able to work with people unlike themselves and that’s the problem I set myself curiously if you work in an artisans workshop that’s often the problem that people were actually working together face not of course they they they have to work together in the sense of coordination and the sometimes in the same age but the more skilled people get the more as a where their page is their own page if I can put it that way and that in really complex workshops like a scientific laboratory which is workshop the same problem of how you deal with difference different skills different understandings of a problem emerges so what I am trying to do is look at what are the skills that people need to communicate across these barriers and difference and I’ll just mention four of them to you the first has got a very fancy name just called biologics and what a dialogic skill means this fancy name is a really a synonym for we think about as good listening skills what it means is that you are able to understand and respond to what something means to say to you rather than what they do say to you it’s quite different from the dialectics where I say something you go no more or I just entirely and then we have a back and forth and then we come to an agreement about something or we think we have gotten closer to each other what dialogic says about the truth invented by me held bakhtin was a Russian linguist about 60 years ago is that you say something and I say that’s not really what you mean but rather than debate it with you I’m going to find ways to find out what you really do mean so I’ve become skilled in and in asking you questions in listening to your silences you know the things that are too difficult for you to say and so on and the result of that is that I understand you better but that and perhaps you feel like you’re better understood but we don’t necessarily come to an agreement so in that way it’s also unlike dialectical things which interchanges which lead to this kind of cooperation where everybody’s on the same page and dialogic that’s there is no end like that and as we know in intimate life and our family life and love affairs most of our relations with people who really care about our dialogical rather than dialectical remember we give them the space to be themselves we understand over time what they mean to say well they seem angry but they’re not really angry and so on and I’ve tried to understand that same principle in this is in larger social relations that’s a so dialogic is a form of cooperation cooperating with the intentional oh the second of these and it’s difficult to learn the second of these skills is the in this kind of cooperation is the use of the subjunctive rather than the declarative and this follows on from the first if I say to you I think X your responses okay I agree or I now I disagree but if I say I would thought that perhaps I use that subjunctive voice the ambiguity that that establishes leaves room for you to come back to and discuss with me and you Brits are masters of I would have thought that you never sometimes you know you don’t mean it yes I would have thought and that and then there’s a real punch academics are British academics famous for that but in everyday life the notion of using the subjunctive is a way of inviting somebody’s response and that means that you are comfortable with dealing with ambiguities rather than clarity’s and I think for this kind of complicated cooperation you know with people are different that learning how to be comfortable with and to work with ambiguity through the deployment of the subjunctive voice is a very important thing skill to master I’ve seen this in the states in conflicts we can read about this in the book between Koreans and blacks Africa Americans which are enormous ly fraught these are two groups that I really have been each other’s throats free for decades and frequently violently so and the ways in which they’ve become more adept at making peace with each other have to do with gradually instead of being very declarative in your face being rather more evasive and more subjunctive in what they say to each other and there’s a long section in my my book about that the third of these skills is the complex cooperation is more often informal than formal and I’m not going to take a lot about that because it’s a long complicated subject but just intuitively when you have something like Robert’s Rules of Order to run a meeting everybody gets their say but very few times two people actually engage with each other you know I have a order of a meeting and everybody has heard but it’s something that often is very unproductive way to deal with complex issues and what my research team and I did was look at ways to informal eyes settings where there’s a lot of conflict so that people feel that there aren’t really any guidelines of rules that they have to deal with each other in order to give a shape to meetings and I put this as a kind of rule and is what diplomats know as well the when in a situation of people relatively calm with each other on the same page the formality serves the purpose is a kind of record-keeping and that helps you come to cooperate in that kind of world pulling together way but when you’re in a situation of difficult the fact that you have this informal eyes situation means that you have to deal with the other in order to keep the meeting going and so that’s it’s an important issue in it’s more contestant thing finally I’ve made an argument which about this kind of complex cooperation which seems to enrage religious people and I don’t know why this is that I’m an atheist but I’m a really nicely a theist but it seems to get them really going and this argument is this that what the address to the other in this kind of complex cooperation invokes empathy rather than sympathy it’s a really important distinction when we feel sympathy for somebody else it’s like you know there but for the grace of God go I Adam Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments so as I see somebody else trip in the street and I think oh I hurt you know you you have the simpl that’s me whereas empathy is I wonder what he tripped over it’s a cooler emotion is a cooler address to the other you’re interested in what’s happening to them than feeling that identifying with I didn’t sympathy as a matter of identification empathy is a matter that keeps distance and replaces identification by curiosity in the workshop empathy that’s a really important phenomenon you’ve got are so curious why did that experiment go wrong instead of going oh poor you or something like that you want to know what did you do wrong what happened in social relations it’s got a different configuration imagine that I am as I am a upper middle class white man and some buddy who is a black poor exile starts telling me the story of save being tortured being being brutalized in some way if I express sympathy for them by saying oh god that must have been terrible I can imagine that it was awful the other person could get quite angry about that how could I imagine that how could I presume to identify with somebody else who is in a more difficult position than I am whereas if I said to them tell me about it what happened to you what was it like which is an empathic reaction I’m showing respect I’m not presuming that my I can know what somebody else experiences and I think this is probably this address to the other through empathy rather than sand thie is really the way in which we honor somebody else’s differences and I’ve tried in my book to show what this means in everyday relations with people in a variety of settings in the workplace community life and so on so are some very well pointed all professors over but this is the kind of the basic pattern of this book I just tell you one program one consequence of thinking about cooperation complex cooperation in this way that emphasizes the logics the subjunctive voice informality and empathy is that a problem in urban life which we not have not addressed very well so far I think can be addressed and that is the relationship between communities at their edges we’ve tended to think when we have different communities together that their relations that discussions with each other what they how they cooperate is a matter of solidarity what they have in common but my idea is that we shouldn’t try to say between a middle-class white community in a poor black or poor Asian community try to find how they can make common cause but how they can speak to each other even across the barriers of being different without having to presume that there’s something that it’s them all together so I just say is the final word about this that my book is an argument for cooperation and against solidarity that’s the point of my book and that’s what’s got these religious people in twist this is very bad ethically at least the arch the Catholic Archbishop but for London thinks this is a terrible council cooperation rather than solidarity subscribe to this wicked which I took as a compliment so that’s we’re on that well so unless you’re empathic because we should all learn to be witness Archbishop I’m sure you listen we have all made mental notes that we should become more dialogical more empathic use the subjective more often and be more sensitive to informality now for those of you and I imagine that’s many of you in the audience who’ve read this book you’ll know that like all Richards books it has an absolutely incredible array of references this is always one of the delights of reading a Richard Sennett book so this traces complex cooperation from the medieval guilds who were of course key themes and the craftsman as well your previous book through the writings of Michele de Montaigne the christening of one of the sons of Victoria and David Beckham the restoration of the neues Museum in Berlin the workings of the John Lewis Partnership and so on and so on so the inevitable question is given that this is the second book in your trilogy which deals with the skills we need to sustain daily life why choose cooperation and why specifically write about it now why is it suddenly so important well I think why it’s while writing about it now is that is in part a political and political economy answer which is that the ways were working in modern forms of work are more and more results forms of cooperation every MBAs in the United States I’m sure you’re much more sophisticated here learns about how to show that you’re cooperative at the workplace it’s one of the most fungible skills are supposed to have but it’s not cooperation in which the corporation actually deals with things like the other person is difficult the core of the project you have is impossible you fail and the other person is is in need of real help and I saw this you know I’ve been writing for a long time I have I have two arrows in my quiver one is was I write about cities and the other as I write about labor and I saw this in the 90s how this teamwork in business was a kind of dumb kind of yeah the theatres of cooperation in which people really were stabbing each other by the they were smiling in front but they were stabbing each other in the back and it’s very pronounced in supposedly new capitalist kinds of labor and you know high service work and so on so I think what we’ve lost in the changes in capitalism that have occurred in the last 30 years or so is the notion that cooperation is meaningful and that’s where I began on the labor side of this I think there’s a political reason for this as well that most of 20th century left-wing politics and I would rule you all and left for this evening has been about solidarity rather than cooperation I’m appalled when I I’m you know I’m a junkie of politics so I actually read these manifestos and I’m appalled at every single labor manifesto I’ve read since sliver came to power in 1997 it’s all about people pulling together about the finding the common threads and multiculturalism you can spin this out every any way you want it’s about annihilating the differences that hurt between people and keeping differences kind of garnish so can you explain how that Russian solidarity is different from cooperation it’s different because what it does that political that sort of well-meaning labor version of it we don’t know about conservatives but what it does is annihilate the fact say I’m second-generation Muslim and you’re a second generation you know if you’re a twentieth generation Brit you know there are things that I’ve suffered that you never have and conversely you’ve got a sense of place which I will never have in my lifetime these are painful differences why should we say that this is not those painful differences are not the subject of our relations with each other why should we have this papal this Tony Blair problem that everybody can find a common thread the of of life in Britain its infant Island in infantilizing you know and a lot of the language of left-wing politics of solidarity because it denies you know the fact that people differ in painful ways of complex ways it produces the kind of political language which is inferior to what we know from private life about how difficult it is to be with somebody somebody else you know it makes the public realm into something that everything is nice or solvable you know that’s another thing that I find extraordinary about this the language of solving a problem is the language of solidarity right but we know that most problems in life are not soluble you just live with the ambiguity things that are half-measures cannot resolve in this dialectical way your relations with other people so that’s I guess that’s the real world you know I’d like to see the sea I mean another way to put this is I’d like to put the social back into socialism and the social means recognizing how difficult social relations are between people well I suspect there will be few people who would argue with your analysis of recent labor party manifestos on the language that’s used but surely there is a way of looking at the recent development of Britain in suggesting that there has been genuine progress in recognizing the differences that you’re talking about and seeing them as points of distinction or interest and we have broadly speaking become a less racist a less homophobic and that’s bigoted society in recent years so how does this sit with your your argument had somebody told me 20 years ago that gay marriage would be legalized in my lifetime I would have laughed and said if only but it won’t be just as Americans of my generation never thought their country could have a black president but none have been delighted to be proved wrong do you feel that this doesn’t represent real progress or that it’s not enough progress question it is progress or at least it’s the diminution of a source of conflict maybe you know I’m biased about this because I’ve been dealing with two areas of where you have a lot of inequality and a lot of conflict which is work and urban life you know but I take your point it’s all not black and it’s all my darkness out there but let me ask you in turn why do you think that this happened in Britain it’s not so much in the States I think this is the Obama phenomenon is complicated but I’m curious why I think this has happened in Britain because it is striking that you gay marriage people are much more tolerant of that well it’s it’s a fascinating subject slightly off agenda a very sophisticated evolution of the gay rights movement in Britain with a knowledge of its history the sort of horrible history of prejudice homophobia and brutality of past year so I think that gathered momentum as it did after Stonewall in the United States and also I suppose I would be more interested in your view on this as a non Brit living in Britain if you look at popular culture in Britain so many of the most popular totems are either very gay or very camp I mean Coronation Street would be our primary so for decades Freddie Mercury who as a teenager in the 70s I didn’t realize was gay and how was it that we were he was so classic I know the fact that else who in many ways I think he and Talley unwittingly has pandered to a sort of homophobia given that his life has been very unhappy in many ways and he had to struggle for his sexuality I think that made people who didn’t feel comfortable about male gay sexuality somehow had he been dazzlingly beautiful and charismatic and gorgeous and his life banan problematic I think they’d have found him more threatening and harder to take but by the time he married David Furnish he was a national treasure with sung at Diana’s funeral I think she although I’m a Republican with a smaller also probably had a very positive influence lots of gay friends a very early AIDS campaigner I think all these things came together and suddenly the British didn’t feel as uncomfortable with different sexualities as they had for decades well I don’t know my sense no we’re having a discussion my sense of this is a situation about this as a as a foreigner in Britain although I lived here 20 years is that you British a much more tolerant than you think and I’ve always had that feeling and you’ve done something which Americans don’t know how to do which is not talk about things when there I saw this I came here for a conference in the late seventies I’m very old and it was a conference on race relations and you’d had a race riot here and the most remarkable thing to me about this conference was that when things hot adult people they stopped talking you know they avoided the subject it was brilliant I mean it was because they kept talking but I would say in general that you are much more tolerant people certainly than Americans are who if they have a difference with somebody want to confront them with it and I mean part of Obama’s problem is that I would say he’s not very his manner is not the manner of confrontation you know and that’s enraging to people they think that he’s he’s got some hidden agenda you know particularly to whites it’s enraging if he were an angry black man they get it and they could put him in a box you know but he’s not an angry black man he’s somebody he’s rather I think and well it’s also an interesting consideration surely that had he not been black to such a sophisticated cerebral figure may not have been electable I mean America clearly got a different package than it to thought but let’s return to the cooperation is we could carry on talking about through all of this all all evening there’s a very funny passage in your book when you talk about coming to Britain and we’re all talking in the subjunctive and you haven’t got a clue what we really are some nations that tend to be better attuned to cooperation in that way yes well I mean I wouldn’t put it nationally but it’s a form of put it another way it’s whether it’s social relations take the form of this kind of everyday diplomacy or of a kind of everyday theatre you know I mean diplomats you remember this chapter and every day policy in my book I mean diplomatic ways of dealing with other people which I think you are despite yourselves masters of it’s a way of assuming that the point of a social relationship is to keep the social relationship going and up to the point where you can’t take it anymore if you’re in a country like the United States or France that’s not the point the point is to display this dramaturgical display of yourself and one of the things we noticed about when we did this study of cooperation in the workplace the French were great at dramatizing in French working these are French people working for word international corporations we’re great at dramatizing how cooperative they were but were very withdrawn from other workers in the workplace so I I’d say I’m not so some French were wonderful of course but but I mean I think it’s a it’s a question of whether you’re in a culture which is in which the display dramaturgical display of yourself is foregrounded versus a culture like yours in which diplomacy it becomes more of a kind of model for social social relationships and what I’d say to you about this I mean I know this has is amusing sides to it but it’s deadly serious because in cultures like France when you have an ethnic conflict between people for instance in the in the full board and in the suburbs and people in the center the responses of people in the center are not empathetic they’re either you know you victims oh you know racial injustice and racism so on the left but more largely they’re confronted with other people which who are telling them what it means to be like secular and what it means to be French and that’s with this is one of the great violent you know conflicts in France and the way in which French people talk as secular French people to these people the Muslim Muslim in full book inflames the problems even more so I mean the many things about Britain which are terrible of course but in I think you’re really quite gifted socially because of this big phenomena of coming years is clearly going to be the increasing power of China which is going to start influencing many many more areas of our lives and in their areas and in the book you talk about a phenomenon called the Guang I was promoted while she met work could you explain what it is and why you found it so intriguing well I don’t think it will directly have an impact on us but it’s a wonderful form of cooperation watching and what it is is a form of say I’m 16 years old and I need the money to go to university and you’re my uncle I mean I’m in Shanghai and you’re my uncle in Singapore my Chinese uncle or once removed twice removed who knows and you pay my school bills I’ve incurred a debt to you but the Chinese don’t monitor us that debt that is I might pay that debt back by giving some medical if I become a doctor to your aged mother or taking in a relative the whole idea about our cheese is what’s called asymmetrical reciprocity and you can understand this is a big word for something that’s very important rather than me saying i gift you X so you owe me X it’s me saying I’ll help you but sometimes somewhere you or your relatives will help me back and it’s a principle of cooperation which allows the Chinese during the worst periods of Mao to survive internally and also externally and it’s now beginning lots of debates about whether the conscience is changing but you understand what this is we think about cooperation something where I given you X and you give me what you gave me the same thing back when you have asymmetric reciprocity you have a social bond which is intense and it honors both sides I know I owe you or my children owe you but the form in which I give back is what I can give back rather than this contractual of form of of exchange and I think it’s made them very strong in the book you draw many other examples of complex cooperation in many different contexts one of my favorites was Robert Owen and the Rochdale principles and we also point out that it’s wonderful though the Rochdale principles may have been in many ways Robert on was responsible for the corporate bonus in reading the original so could you explain the purpose of the Rochdale principles they evolved well you know both in Britain and to a lesser extent in America in the 19th century there were very strong cooperative movements do you know by the way that 2012 is the year of the cooperate of the co-operative UN year of the co-operative that’s our fault and we had lots of discussions about Robert oh and Owens motion was basically this the oppressed people need to have to develop ways of cooperating with each other rather than spending their time and what he called useless anger and it was the overnights it was the great reproach to Marxism this is all 19th century context but the notion was that a cooperative was something where we’re people poor people pull their resources you know to to not expend useless anger but to do something for themselves and these Rochdale principles there are six of them I think six yeah six there are ways to organize a community savings bank an old-age scheme you know they enabled you to to establish cooperatives and one of the six principles is that is bonus that is just as in goldman sachs that you distribute the excess that you don’t need to run the cooperative every year but I think he had a rather different idea of the bonus goldman sachs but you know if you think about what’s happened the last five years you know we’ve taken a we’ve expended a lot of useless anger against bankers who are much more potent than any of us are and defending themselves I mean they own this government you know and what we haven’t done is going back to his cooperative movements to take care of ourselves and Owen would say to people forget about them you’re never going to make David Cameron into one nation Tory no matter how he talks maybe even at Miliband you should be starting new institutions where PSA people pool information about jobs or pool taking care of the sick and so on so that’s what the year of the co-operative was supposed to tell you about but obviously we haven’t done a good job about it but so many 12 days of X pirates if we look at a contemporary example of cooperation but one of the most intriguing ones was the restoration of the neues Museum in Berlin run by David Chipperfield could you tell us about well this is a wonderful urbanistic example Chipperfield who was a british no sir david translators was charged with restoring the museum that had been blasted in the Second World War in Berlin reconstructed and he had two groups fighting each other one were people who wanted to restore the museum to its 19th century imperialist glory because it’s full of things that the Germans long before the Nazis came to power to from the rest of the world and so those were people on the one hand for restoration and on the other side where people who want to start clear the whole thing out and make a new museum truly neues museum building and what he did was a kind of repair which incorporated and I think this is really to me very moving about it which left for instance a lot of the bullet holes in the fabric of the museum he put it back in working order but when you walk through this museum you are aware that this museum was bombed by bomber Harris and then was left to rot by the communists there are lots of parts of it which are unresolved and it’s a physical experience of something that’s biological and which arouses empathy rather than sympathy because you’re asking what are these it’s a shrapnel that are left in the fabric you know it’s a physical translation of this he yes he was very diplomatic in negotiating between these two groups but what interested me was the actual physical form of the museum it embodies a kind of complex negotiation between two very different pasts so on who didn’t cooperate and it should be flat which is a very option so I was interested in both the process by which the museum was made but also the fact that you know what I’ve described you is a process but it also has its manifested in physical form there are biological forms it’s a whole issue so I was thinking about this as a metaphor about repair and not only cooperate in how how metaphorically repair their strategies of repair that are cooperative with it is absolutely extraordinary building let’s talk about an example of failed cooperation and in a completely different sphere and one that he’s an together and allude to fairly often his Google Wave oh yes that’s so really interesting and I’m so glad so what why why did it fail okay this is really an interesting project in I was contacted in 2009 when I started working on this book on cooperation by people at Google who said would you be involved in the beta testing of a new online program we think that you can imagine what they think that the the the web is a wonderful way beyond things like like Skype and so on that we can actually use the web for really serious cooperation and then that it’s something called Google Wave and I in a group of people became amongst its beta testers that’s where you try out the program a real-world situation and I really learned a lot by the failure of this program here’s what the engineers had thought they have thought the process of cooperating is coming closer and closer to be on the same page that dialectical process and that translated by by unscreened that the parts of the screen that got bigger were about the parts that people agreed with and or to the side of the screen were what were called irrelevance ease now you know that when you’re having a conversation about a complex thing that’s something that seems irrelevant that comes out of left field that’s lateral knowledge can some times be the most important thing that happens in the conversation and what was happening with Google Wave was that these kind of this kind of lateral knowledge was being literally pushed aside and the people who would raise this lateral No worthy their contributions were being shoved aside we were having a discussion about ethnic problems in London and more and more focusing on problems of religion and so on but there were some members of this group who were spread all over Europe and and North America some members of this group were saying well maybe these problems aren’t really as important as the gender problems between generations within Islam and maybe we should forget about whites in this discussion they got pushed to the side and because on the screen they got pushed their contributions got pushed on the side these people began to participate less and less you know now and the project came out with banality what everybody agreed on could agree on was jumpa whereas all the complexity had been moved to the side now I was interested in this because in a workshop and particularly in the laboratory workshop it’s often what we think of its lateral knowledge or a lateral procedure which gets shoved up against something that’s difficult and you’re trying to make work and suddenly this thing that looked irrelevant becomes trans the key unlock to solving a problem that you can’t solve within its own terms it’s a very common thing within good-good laboratory it’s also true in arts you know you work or way of something as a painter you will go away from it start looking at something else you know look take a different set of colors or whatever and suddenly this other thing begins to unlock the key of what you were trying to do another practice and this is a very familiar craft thing that we have that we have this kind of knowledge but here in the social realm it was being literally displaced on-screen and we were losing participants and so on and what was remaining the common thread was Tony Blair’s language the common thread was threaded air just so I’m not anti computer at all but I was interested in the way in which two purposeful to organized to engineered a form of cooperation actually leads to poor results and again it’s that ambiguous thing well we leave something indeterminate and informal off the kind of something from left field comes in as a solution to a problem now here you as Brits have a big issue because you’re in a culture of targets in education and health service and so on there’s not much room for ambiguity your masters are trying to close down the area of solutions so that everything is foreseen in advance and the kind of wild solution in education the suddenly figuring out that if you could study painting in school but you no longer can for for credit I guess it is that that might have something to do with the way you solve a problem in little boards all right all of that is being dismissed and you’re getting this kind of shopkeeper mentality knowing in advance what you’re trying to find out that is a recipe for disaster there has got to be a room for the ambiguous then the four for intuition I mean there has to be in science there must be an in education as well and it’s only that ambiguity at say that allows people to really seriously cooperate with each other and share different kinds of knowledge so given that you’ve been thinking and writing about the subject of complex cooperation for so long are there any instances of daily life that you just think of screaming out for more ingenious cooperative approach well schools I mean whenever I look at a school full of computer screens at which kids are sitting individually I think you know throw them out get rid of those screens have you ever tried if you don’t own a Mac 27-inch iMac two for four people to watch one screen together and discuss what’s on it it is difficult but then the content of those screens this was another issue area to come to actually people may be at their screen and isolation but the world had opens up to them is completely it could network so and one thing I wasn’t sure where you stood in the book was on social networks like Facebook and Twitter I use you were quite ambiguous about them do you see them as potentially positive media of communication or largely negative do they simply give the illusion of community in other words well as you know I mean I think they’re the Arab Spring tells us that these programs can be used for wonderful forms of cooperation but they’re not the forms for which they were designed and Facebook in particular was a kind of beauty parade you know it’s meant to be a dating resource amongst undergraduates at Harvard University is and what’s built into what’s engineered into it is the notion of display rather than an interaction if you remember I had the example of somebody who had 627 friends 600 something like that if each of those friends sent all if you multiplied 627 by 627 just for one day send one message what kind of a social network would that be be impossible you’d have about a thousand messages one day so it’s organized it’s a social network organized before display and I think the Holy Grail in this is how you get around the problem of display and get communication instead it’s the same problem and well so do you see Twitter as being more genuinely communicative obviously it never more than 140 characters yeah because the visual component is less yeah well there is no all right well it could be but I mean the point I’d make to you about this is that we’re just at the beginning with these devices and the first time we’re out of the box with them we think about them as social but they’re not really sociable in the sense of interacting and maybe it will be that entrance smaller intranets of 50 60 people become the more social really truly social forms of media but the logic of course of Twitter is to have the billion people that use it so you can send a billion people advertising and this is why in my first book I was so taken with Linux I’m a technological not idea but close to it and but I’ve learned how to program in Linux and that’s a different world because the world that doesn’t isn’t controlled by Bill Gates well but that is the the sort of dazzling wonder of the internet because Tim berners-lee designed it so that no everybody has equal access you and I and Bill Gates have the same level of access to it it can never however hard Google tries being monopolized by a single force because everybody still has energy which is quite remarkable yes but it means that you better become a craftsman of the internet to use it well to to find sites and places where you can really interact with other people requires not performing google’s search which will send you up as you know the Google’s z4 first sites first and so on shall we give people time I think we should so as you’ve alluded to your last book the craftsman while mics are being prepared and someone final question your next book is on the making of cities could you tell us something very quickly about that question I mean I’m in the forest at this moment yeah I mean it’s a book about the craft of urban design and it’s more in a way more specialized book it’s about how can we apply the principles of craftsmanship to making cities but but I’ve become confused because I’m also looking at how we can become better more skilled at using cities more competence urbanites which is not necessarily a question of design so I’m deep in this forest now but that’s that’s what it’s about it’s about the craft of living and and designing cities and the ambiguity between the two well we look forward so could you if you have a question for Richard could you raise your hand and you will have to slink into the microphone okay one let me go because I really want to address the first what you say there are forms of toleration which are bred by indifference you know you just tolerate they go their way and you go yours and it’s a question of what form toleration takes and sometimes toleration by a difference can be very liberating to oppressed groups you know people just don’t care about but your first question is a really interesting one there’s a lot of research done about the quote/unquote natural instinct to cooperate with your own kind and what’s interesting about it it’s ologists have done this and they’ve done it for both primates and free human beings is that it seems like it’s more natural then cooperating with people who different from you but in fact this kind of illusion they found for instance that a baby’s cooperation with its caregiver in the past mostly its mother is a prop as as far as we can tell is a learning during its first year about about working well with an object the nipple whether its biological or Oh which is not you there’s no identification in the first year year-and-a-half with the people that newborn cooperates so you know cooperation at birth and in the most fundamental of its natural cycle is about dealing with that difference in order to survive and so on another bit of research I don’t know very much about that but I do know more about the research that deals with the inevitable relation between cooperation with your own kind and competition with the corporation and competition are not opposites you know we have to cooperate and say them of the game in order to play above it but it seems that through our forms of cooperation with people who are nearly like you or the same as you that give rise to the kind of oedipal drama of aggression and so there’s something called the cooperation aggression complex you can read about it in my book and what that is is that people who are exactly like yield our people whom you never give the freedom to be any different from you in other words you’re in a kind of competitive relationship about them who is the most who is the most white who is the most Islamic and the fact that you’re all alike to begin with sets up this aggressive competitive relationship and Freud is our great guide to this this is what sibling rivalry does the dynamics of sibling rivalry so that’s natural where is the kind of cooperation I’m talking about is more archaic in the life cycle but it doesn’t give rise to that nose competition for who’s the most the most the only question I ask you about this is do you feel I mean where this really beresan my own life is the sellout on tuition fees would you have stayed if you were lived in in that coalition with with would you have stayed in a Lib Dem party if your leaders had sold out on this principle I think at that point I wouldn’t know that and what that that the reason for that is that what you have there is cooperation which is really collusion you have an agreement so that an elite can maintain itself in power and that’s a collusive you know those leaders should have been fighting the corner of no tuition fees that’s why they were put it’s not a basic tenets of Lib Dem ideology that no nobody should have to pay to go to university so when the leaders sell you out there collusive but why cooperate by staying in their party that’s my final question yeah excuse me yeah maybe I’ve given too much of an emphasis to it in it in its North American and European for me I guess all I see it see what you mean it’s true in warfare as well people are attacked they got to talk together they’ve got to be solid there and in order to defend themselves I guess my vision on this is influenced or warped by the fact that I am so focused on the Labour process and community conflicts that it seemed to me that in those contexts in the community context if it means that Lots is too much is left out and in the work process it’s fake fake solidarity you know and maybe that’s the domain in which the circum operates maybe maybe can’t be made as a general argument this is a discussion we’ll have ultra whiskey well there is a wonderful offer Richard has very gain we offered to take individual questions afterwards at the book signing when he will of course sign your books as well I would like to be the huge thank you to him

Leave a Reply