The Hames Report

Five Departures in Search of a Destination

The label philosopher-activist, routinely used to help classify what I and others like me actually do for a living, connotes a bias for transforming pure thought – explicitly matters related to existence, reason and knowledge - into informed and, one hopes beneficial, action. Every so often it is just as necessary, perhaps more so, to think about such issues unimpeded by practical considerations.

Thus it is that I take great pleasure from speculating on alternative beliefs, systems, models, methods and practises. In all likelihood these reflections will be disregarded by those who would have most to gain from insights that consciously differ from the familiar and the predictable. That is life.

There are numerous ways to ignore, deny or reject new information. Although we think of ourselves as innovative beings, by and large we tend to be virtuosos of conservatism - preferring to stick with what we know in order to avoid change whenever possible. Indeed eluding anything that smacks of being reformist or contentious might even be regarded as a requirement for achieving high office.

Authorities and experts alike will regularly deem original ideas to be impractical, wacky, or totally outside the bounds of reason. Often, though, it might simply be that they run contrary to ingrained beliefs.

This is not a revelation. An avoidance of the unfamiliar runs like a silver thread throughout much of history. It is at least as common as the adoption of novelty. We consistently reject knowledge that does not accord with our own beliefs – turning our backs on novel or fresh information if by doing so we can strengthen our own position and self-esteem.

Galileo was persecuted for “offending the scriptures” when he suggested the Earth moved around the Sun. Einstein was so derided by scientific colleagues for his theory of the cosmological constant that he began to think of himself as a failure. Alan Turing, the father of modern computing, was famously chemically-castrated.

Nor is it scientific advances alone that cause such violent reactions. Jesus Christ was tormented and killed for deeds that challenged the conventions and wisdom of his era. And to this day the papal decree that excommunicated Martin Luther for heresy has not been rescinded. Anyone, it seems, that seriously challenges the status quo can become a heretic.

Departure 1 – In Search of a Methodology

A central and long-established part of my own work, as well as the core proposition for reinventing failing systems that the Centre for the Future will be undertaking as part of its century-long Mindful Uprising, is the importance of reinvention.

This entails a forensic interrogation of collapsing systems - by going back to first principles in order to understand why they are in a state of decline - and redesigning their autopoietic viability from within more applicable, all-embracing, contextual frames. These two factors are vital in the creation of methodologies [meta-models] from which uncommon or unlikely ideas can surface and take flight.

And so Ken Wilber’s perspectives on integral theory are important not because they give rise to an original discipline and knowledge base but because they do not. Instead, his transdisciplinary insights offer us the possibility of accessing a more inclusive platform from which to contemplate the human condition.

Though not nearly as contentious as the fractious communities-of-interest arising from interpretations of Wilber and his work, Transformational Narrative - the dialogical inquiry methodology conceived by Marvin Oka and myself in the 1990’s - has all the attributes of this type of meta-model.

Transformational Narrative had its origins in the discrete yet interlaced work of several scholars who I admire - most notably Professors Richard Bawden, David Cooperrider, Stafford Beer, David Kolb, Clare Graves, Otto Scharmer, Peter Checkland, Richard Slaughter, and Sohail Inayatullah. Although our starting point was a weaving together of nine vaguely-related models, the result was a higher-level platform that successfully transcended any slight inconsistencies we identified in each of them.[1]

Departure 2 – Osama & George

The story of how Transformational Narrative was conceived is noteworthy as it points to the kinds of highly complex situations in which the use of methodologies like this are optimal – even though they are still used far too rarely.

One of The Hames Group’s clients requested that we help her improve the “strategic inquiry and analysis capabilities” of her executive team. She perceived the capacity of her team to think and converse strategically as woefully inadequate - parochial, embedded within a silo mentality, and tending to slip into narrow, one-sided debate. In executive meetings those with the loudest voice would usually prevail. Strategic it was not.

Our first reaction was to conduct some desk research. We scoured the literature for an existing tool or process that we could use to upgrade thinking in real-time conversations to make them more strategic. There were a few available. Actually this is when we stumbled across many of the aforesaid methods. But none of them were completely satisfactory. Some introduced the notion of futures search while neglecting the significance of the past. Others focused on observable information but ignored the critical nature of interior assumptions and beliefs. Still others were fixated on either soft or hard systems but never both. And so on…

Given that none of the methods we discovered adequately met our needs we decided to invent our own. We set ourselves a suitable challenge: If we could sit Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush down at the same table, having frisked them for weapons, and allowing for practical impediments such as mutual hostility and the lack of a common language, how would we even begin to find common ground between two protagonists whose ideological life-systems were so diametrically opposed?

Starting from scratch, incorporating a few elements from the models we had already discovered, and integrating ideas from psychotherapy, counselling and design science, we crafted a new methodology. Transformational Narrative was born.

Departure 3 – Prisons of our Own Invention

We quickly realised that this new approach to integral strategic design worked best in dynamically complex environments where any number of ingrained antagonisms and opposing attitudes impeded any possibility of cooperation. Our initial testing of the Transformational Narrative methodology in multifaceted, often incredibly messy, geopolitical conditions - where precedence, pious cant, binary reasoning, fixed boundaries, political ideology and outraged self-righteousness were routinely held up to justify the current predicament - was instructive.

Often we unearthed issues that aggravated tensions while not necessarily being all that problematic, especially when approached from a different perspective, or using a different aperture. We failed to find a situation that could not be improved through the use of Transformational Narrative.

One of the more obvious benefits of the methodology was the way in which polyocularity could be effortlessly incorporated into the discourse. We usually forget that even in the most uncomplicated of situations there will be at least six correlated viewpoints to consider. Protagonists - most commonly two groups with some degree of misaligned views and needs; influential advisers to the lead actors on both sides; third party facilitators and negotiators; witnesses directly affected by outcomes but not privy to the negotiations; and others who might be indirectly touched by changed circumstances in the longer term.

These viewpoints exist at a surface level. Additional, oftentimes highly revealing, information can be harvested by taking into consideration the interrelational dynamics across all parties, from a stack of progressively higher altitudes. In practice it is often only one or two of the protagonists, in addition to any third party negotiators, who have genuine clout. They also usually control the process. This begs the question how any solution can endure in circumstances where the needs of all those who have a stake in the situation have not been taken into account and, at least to some extent, accommodated.

Almost invariably the protagonists - their emotions, hard-wired assumptions, values, current loyalties and beliefs - are more of a problem than the issue per se. The need to win, or at least to save face by avoiding the impression of defeat. The need not to back down on principles that could betray a frailty to be exploited at a later date. The need to create the illusion of progress. These are all shadow factors that can easily turn into the main motivators without due care and attention.

Additionally there is the bureaucratic paraphernalia surrounding the situation itself. This can include the engineering of a “win-win” situation; the predetermined forfeiture of assets, or the use of pre-existing laws, such as the notion of sovereignty, as the primary framework for prosecuting a case, for example.

What is agreed or extracted prior to the process beginning is often a cause of further difficulties. For example, one common convention is where facilitators assume their role is to help take the emotions out of the process. This is actually the opposite of what needs to be done. Integrating and moderating an exploration of passions and psychological reactions to specific scenarios is key to finding an enduring solution.

All of the above are artificial constructs that can so easily impede real breakthroughs. Yet they are all attributes to be found in international negotiations, mediation and conflict resolution that we continue to tolerate for no good reason.

Departure 4 – The Horns of a Dilemma

Curiously we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of binary thought far too often. Once snared on the horns of a dilemma, resolution of the two premises, rather than a recalibration of them or a refutation of such limited choices, can become not only desired, but an essential outcome of any negotiations. We remain blind to alternatives. Resolution is also often considered the cheapest and most efficient way to solve geopolitical problems. It also avoids having to take into account all that fluffy, soft, emotional stuff…

For these reasons geopolitical troubles are usually reduced to a simple formula: an impasse between two equally powerful sides where a clean result is expected to be achieved. Any attempt to reconceive individual parameters in order to perceive the issue differently, or to achieve a more satisfactory and enduring outcome, is considered off-limits. It is assumed that the degree of divergence in sensitive situations, where so many variants, across so many dimensions, tug in different directions, and there is so much at stake, can only be contained. We see this course of action pursued throughout history. Because of such convictions any endeavour to transcend the two extremes is exceedingly rare.

To make matters worse, the language of male-inflected competitive behaviour is often employed in situations where a resolution of this kind is anticipated. But, once again, it is never as simple as that. An overtly aggressive vocabulary is hardly a smart framing if the extremes of a situation are to be transcended rather than traded-off against each other. If a resolution is sought from complexity it will, of necessity, be incomplete. And in situations where overly-simplistic, linear thinking is advanced, any proposed resolution will automatically favour one adversary over the other. Naturally we must keep in mind that the gambit for a clear cut resolution of a problem can be a clandestine strategy on the part of one party.

If we expect different results from international negotiations there are many rudimentary lessons we should be teaching those involved in navigating fundamental geopolitical change. I am sure you will have your own ideas. But starting from first principles my top six would be:

1. Establish the boundaries of any problem-situation in the widest possible arena to ensure all relevant stakeholders have a voice. In the instance of two villages arguing over the rights to fish in a lake bordering both villages, for example, we might engage residents, those who have an interest in the broader catchment area of the lake, workers from factories that extract water or discharge waste into the lake, representatives from local energy utilities, farmers, the food industry, etc.
2. Express the profound complexity within any problem-situation accurately and to its fullest extent. Usually that means instituting (i) ways to visualise the nature and dynamic of the complexity in order to see patterns that might otherwise remain invisible, together with (ii) methods for pinpointing constraints that are causing the system to behave in ways that are unsatisfactory or harmful.
3. Utilise processes of collaborative inquiry and design rather than formal argument and debate. There are very effective methods available that use an appreciative vocabulary and process, that pose open rather than closed questions, that unite rather than divide, and that create rather than critique.
4. Turn the discussion over to stakeholders. When groups of citizens are able to use mechanisms like futures search, alternative scenarios, open space, and appreciative inquiry, for example, practical solutions, and the responsibility for making those solutions work, rests with those who participate in the conversation, rather than their “leaders” per se. This is the surest way to sustain change.
5. Use information to clarify possibilities, rather than to defend a position. Introducing arbitrary layers of information - such as religious beliefs, traditional boundaries, issues of mobility or access to public services, for example - one on top of each other, can add to a more comprehensive appreciation of the dynamics we are dealing with. But it can also be unhelpful if visual representations of these layers are unavailable, behavioural motives are unclear, or a binary resolution of the situation is assumed to be adequate. In fact it can make things far more complicated.
6. Proceed within a spirit of cooperation in abundance. Most contemporary geopolitical plays assume that the problems, complicated by deeply ingrained tensions and unreasonable expectations, are only resolved through an outright win - or an intolerable compromise. This attitude is marked by a mindset of competition within scarcity. But life is not scarce. Nor is it a competition. Instead, participants should be emboldened to set aside their instinct to dispute and contest facts, figures, territory, borders, beliefs, values and truths, in order to explore and accommodate the multitude of divergent factors inherent within any situation. For the most part resolutions are entirely arbitrary. They exploit a preference for reducing complexity to the most prosaic rules, that then become fixed and rapidly outmoded. Accommodation is qualitatively different. It requires the suspension of competition, for only then can we liberate cooperation and nurture the ability to live comfortably within complexity. Unlike resolutions, accommodations endure because they evolve and adapt to new circumstances.

Departure 5 – Israel + Palestine

The current stand-off between the Israeli and Palestinian people, or rather those that have the gall to speak and act on their behalf, has recently descended into puerile chest-beating and a nasty war of words using the jargon of rivalry and aggression. Once again the patriarchal nature of the power on both sides illustrates nothing more than hubris and egotistical self-interest. Hapless citizens stand by the side-lines and watch others, far more formidable and uncompromising, shape their future. They are caught on the horns of a classic dilemma. Or are they?

As in many other parts of the world nowadays, what we are witnessing is a failure of governance; a system administrated by a powerful and wealthy elite that no longer serves the majority. As always, the suffering resulting from callous foolishness and incompetence is experienced by ordinary people, Arabs and Israelis alike, who go about their daily lives the best they can, in spite of the recklessness engaged in by their so-called leaders.

In fact there is no better example of the catastrophic failure of present-day leaders and their dated understanding of leadership than this case, which has been allowed to persist since the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.

For two decades or more, evidence from local communities on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem suggests that, when left to their own devices, men and women co-exist, and children play amicably, as neighbours tend to do, with barely a squabble between them. The deeper conflict contrived between Israeli and Palestinian agencies is a pretence - visited upon ordinary people by a few privileged, but ultimately petty Caesars, more concerned to preserve the themes of victimisation and persecution that weave their way through both Palestinian and Israeli national identity narratives.

Those culpable do not possess an ability to frame this issue in any way other than the ownership and control of territory - lands they claim belongs to them to the exclusion of all others. Both sides persist in framing their current problems around the legality of Israeli settlers on the West Bank. Though this might have been deemed illegal originally, and condemned as such, it was not nipped in the bud by the UN or any other concerned third party. Regardless of the circumstances at the time, the reality has shifted.

There are currently around 600,000 Israeli settlers on Palestinian territory, in communities ranging in size from small outposts of just a few dozen people to Ariel, home to some 20,000 people. Two of the more controversial settlements lie inside and adjacent to Hebron, a large Palestinian city that houses the burial place of Abraham, making it one of the holiest sites in both Judaism and Islam.

Existing policies are predicated on the evolution of a two-state solution. Yet the reality decrees this concept to be untenable. It is too complicated to enforce partition now. Indeed this course of action would be similar to that imposed upon India and Pakistan in 1947 – an impulsive legal excuse that disregarded reality and inevitably led to bloodshed on a massive scale. Yet this is still the official policy being pursued by Israel and Palestine. It is futile –no longer even desired by either of the two countries. To push for this solution is to guarantee more bloodshed and foster more hatred.

The so-called peace process had been derailed by obsolete language and laws. Both need to change if progress is to be made. In spite of the strong international consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements – based on the fourth Geneva Convention which bans nations from moving populations and establishing settlements in the territory of another nation won in war - a revitalised and shared vision of what is possible is needed if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

The region of greater Mesopotamia is one of the acknowledged cradles of civilisation. The territories encompassing Israel and Palestine are held to be sacred by all three monotheistic religions. To many contemporary commentators the power of the state is in decline – an emblem of old empires, and false notions of sovereignty, borders, and a desire to control territory. In such a context the idea that such a crucial decision as the future of two peoples should rest totally with the state must be open to doubt. What innovative possibilities might open up if the power to decide such questions was to be vested in the people? Who knows what might eventuate.

Imagine what a powerful message would be sent to the rest of the world if those living in the ancient region of Canaan was the first society in the 21^st century to open both their hearts and minds to people of all faiths. To offer an oath of peace, health and wellbeing to all those residing within their borders. To declare themselves not Jew, nor Arab, nor Christian, but the first truly global multifaith nation.

Framing the opportunities rather than the problem space is wise. Nothing is then impossible. And a gesture of this magnitude could be a living, breathing, symbol of how cooperation and empathy are the future for a human family united in peaceful coexistence.

 

 

[1] Incidentally it is my understanding that only two of these nine, exceedingly open-minded and creative scholars, accept Transformational Narrative as an advancement to their own contributions. This betrays the supreme difficulty even the most intelligent of us have in setting aside our most deeply-held beliefs - especially when these are bolstered by emotional, psychological and professional investments of one kind or another.

First They Ignore You....

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

In spite of the fact we homo sapiens pride ourselves on being an inventive lot, when faced with substantive issues that could affect us personally our inclination, more often than not, is to stick with the status quo and to snub or deliberately snuff out innovative ideas. This is because we are inclined to associate any kind of change with disruption, discomfort, and a sense of forfeiture. Generally speaking we usually find new ideas invasive and confronting.

Though such reactions are manifestly absurd, nihilistic feelings routinely overwhelm most other factors. We publicly thrive on disasters, petty tyrannies, hopeless scenarios, socially inappropriate conduct and celebrities behaving badly. Indeed an infatuation with negativity and despair seems to have become a pathological condition for many of us today. I will always remember feeling dumbfounded when an audience in Melbourne Town Hall gave Al Gore a standing ovation after watching a screening of An Inconvenient Truth. They had just witnessed one of the most depressing documentaries of recent times and they were applauding the possibility of their own extinction.

Naturally there are always exceptions to any rule. Some people cling perilously close to the edge of reason all their lives – often describing the experience as a burden yet somehow revitalizing. These positive deviants are frequently considered a menace to the social order. Indeed change-makers generally are often described as heretics, misfits, or just plain different - rather than heroes, seers or pioneers. Perhaps that is simply a cultural defense mechanism, but it has sometimes led to the most unfortunate of consequences.

The opposition to new ideas becomes particularly virulent when the sheer novelty of a proposal imperils principles that have prevailed for decades or perhaps even generations. One such belief is the wage-labour work ethic - long-enshrined in the conviction that the only moral way to contribute to society is through hard work and frugality. Anything other than the exchange of physical exertion for money - including the inability to find a job, writing poetry instead, or refusing to engage in menial or degrading work - is instinctively deemed irresponsible and lazy, worthy of censure by a society that knows no other way. In this context unemployment is degrading, shameful, and an affront to the rest of us. The fact that mass labour coupled with unfettered greed allowed capitalism to evolve into a high-risk, high-reward casino, is surely sufficient reason for jettisoning a belief system that is rapidly losing credibility, especially in an age where computers have replaced workers in every smokestack industry.

The recent furore following the encyclical Laudato Si from Pope Francis is a case where both the ideas and the emissary have been bitterly attacked. Although the actual subject matter, as in the entreaties presented by Francis, are hardly news to those activists, now numbering in their hundreds of millions, who are intent on eradicating the negative impacts of predatory capitalism, state-sponsored terrorism, and environmental pollution on humanity, the reaction from within the conservative ranks of the Catholic church has been wildly at odds both with common sense and the populace at large. The Holy Father’s quite proper elucidation of the Christ myths, greeted with undisguised dismay by orthodox church officials, has been used to distract, ridicule, ignore or condemn his more exalted arguments in ways that are simply ill-informed and bigoted.

Ultimately the evolution of ideas boils down to a bizarre balancing act between sticking with what we know worked in the past, and letting go when something no longer works, so as to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances. This is usually a matter of intuition when problems present as uncomplicated and clear-cut. But when faced with disconcertingly diverse states, potentially life-threatening conditions, or impenetrable data that offers not one but many possible solutions to a variety of complex paradoxes, our most common reaction is invariably primitive: we choose to freeze or to fight rather than to apply our intellect to the situation.

Of course new ideas are more necessary now than ever before. We need to find new ways of appreciating each other and living together. New ways of inhabiting the planet within the limits imposed by nature. New ways of generating health and well being for everyone. And new ways of understanding what it might actually mean to be human. What we often find, though, is a reluctance to discard the clutter of obsolete beliefs piling up behind us for fear of losing that which has become familiar and comforting. This particularly seems to be the case when familiarity becomes a habit which then leads to an addiction. Think coal, oil, smartphones, Coca-Cola, heroin, tobacco, exercise, sugar, easy credit…

So how can we help each other overcome this aversion to new ideas? There are any number of ways that a novel idea can be crushed, never to see the light of day again. Rationality rarely enters into an equation driven by a deficit mindset or fear of the unknown. Even when a new idea is clearly more humane, benefits more people in the longer term, is cheaper to produce and distribute, is less toxic to humans and does far less damage to the natural environment than its rivals, a well-funded, well-organized opposition, accompanied by sufficiently strident media campaigns, can so easily scupper its plausibility in the community mind. One only has to examine the lies consistently told by the coal industry and their advocates in their effort to protect noxious assets that should stay in the ground to see how smart public relations and marketing spin have become - and how easily we are hoodwinked into believing reassuring propaganda.

Mahatma Gandhi knew a thing or two about the vehement resistance a radical idea like Indian independence would invite in the hallowed halls of Westminster. But his strategy of peaceful non-cooperation was perfectly conceived for the circumstances. Initially the British paid no attention to him. But his words and deeds spread like wildfire. As civil disobedience grew, gaining traction among ordinary citizens, orders were given for his arrest on a number of trumped up charges in an attempt to take him out of the equation. When that failed they invited him to London – using propaganda to pour scorn on him personally as well as on his proposals. And when that backfired they resorted to various forms of violence until the blood of ordinary Indians flowed freely in the streets. That was a bad error of judgement. By this time people all around the world were watching the newsreels of the time and were witness to the barbaric nature of the British Empire. Having lost the moral high ground the British suddenly withdrew. India had won.

What lessons can be learned from such a saga? Although the global emergency our species faces today is vastly dissimilar from his dignified struggle for freedom, Gandhi’s strategy is still significant in that it can be applied to almost all contemporary campaigns, whether for healthy food, the alleviation of poverty and hunger, equity, indigenous rights, environmental sanity or justice.

Today we are in the midst of a modern phenomenon - people from all walks of life coming together to create a more just and sustainable world. What is fast becoming "the largest social movement in history" is awake and flexing its muscle. The vast majority of people are no longer untouched by events. Moreover they now have the impulse to be noticed - plus an edict crying out to be heard.

Within today’s social movements there are many interest groups and innumerable messages competing for our attention. But there is also a single unwavering demand. The cry for change. Change to institutions that cannot cope with complexity. Change to beliefs and practices that are now obsolete in the face of a human population exceeding seven billion people. Change to systems that are biased in favour of the well-to-do and yet are so easily open to further corruption. Change to obsolete rituals of leading. Change to the status quo. Massive change in fact.

But, as already intimated, if change invites opposition, massive change provokes massive opposition. If that is the case how should activists and change makers deal with the likely flood of opposition to new ideas? The best answer is possibly also the simplest and the wisest – which is not to claim it requires less courage.

When you are ignored just keep working - but create a racket people cannot disregard. When your ideas meet laughter or ridicule just keep working - but do not become distracted by the quips and sarcasm aimed at you. And when eventually they start fighting you just keep working - but show them how your alternative is far superior to that which already exists. Above all do not fall into the trap of behaving as they would behave towards you. Just keep working. You will win.

Finding America

Game Theory - based on the rationale that everyone acts in their own interest - is a pretty harsh and unforgiving way of seeing and understanding world affairs. It can also be a precise tool in the right hands.

Since publishing Star Spangled Banners, which was an attempt to critique the delusional nature of some facets of the American psyche and their manifestation within a contemporary setting, I have received requests for specific details of what I believe should be done to effect a transition towards a more viable and relevant role for America in the 21st century.

Whether or not radically different policies can be put in place remains debatable. No matter how one appraises the current situation, any viable new policy aimed at unshackling old mindsets will demand a degree of political will and adeptness that are currently absent, a design utilising genuinely transformational thinking that shifts social, political and economic aspirations and discourse and, of course, relevant support from all sectors of society. Well, I didn't say it would be easy!

Because of my total concentration on the US in Star Spangled Banners a few of my readers accused me of rabid bias. To be clear, my intention was not in any way to insinuate America shoulders a unique burden. Far from it. Many nations have an urgent need for positive narratives that include and transcend past flaws and misdemeanours with candid humility but that point confidently towards a compassionate and abundant future - whether they realise this or not. So, for example, my own country of Australia still needs to concede and come to terms with the impact of the "stolen" generation. China and Japan must face up to wartime atrocities. Israel must let go of its fears in order to behave less belligerently towards its neighbours and deal with Hamas. And so on....

But in focusing on the US I was singling out the all-encompassing and imposing position of US culture and strategy in the world today, from which none of us can escape. Contemporary America is a commanding universal presence - an empire of the mind. It casts an overwhelming shadow on the world-system that goes far beyond mere militaristic, political or economic power.

Because of the tone of my previous narrative, too, other readers inferred that I would hail the decline of the US with glee. Not so. To many people, the USA is a symbol of freedom and of unity through diversity - a soaring expression of the human spirit comprising creative flair, scientific & technological competence and entrepreneurial imagination. It should be cherished as such.

But it is not. Mostly, I suspect, because the self-appointed and elected custodians of Brand USA - a mostly high-wealth clique of conservative bankers, government bureaucrats, politicians, generals, industrialists and media czars - deem themselves best able to preserve the illusion of benevolent empire. They therefore have no reason, and certainly no desire, to change the status quo. In fact their impulse is to reinforce the current fiction, and to subjugate any challenge to it, under the pretext of defending the "land of the free" from unwarranted attack. Their hubris is astonishing.

Actually, paradoxically, they are probably correct in their belief at least. Through constant repetition they have successfully fabricated a meme founded on the sentimentalisation of deceits, but that has immense popular appeal, which they are now intent on preserving at any cost.

Personal freedoms, liberty and limits to government power may be written into the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, but these principles have become, at best, aspirational in real terms. My colleague David Martin reminded me of the following: The US stole its land from indigenous tribes. Religious freedom was never evident - indeed the early Puritan settlers were as committed to burning witches as their Lancashire counterparts. America has never had a peacetime economy - the industrial supply of gunpowder was always as important as cotton. American hostilities in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and more recently Pakistan, has exacerbated the threat of terrorism. In the past decade US law makers have comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. Need I go on?  

But the real issue we are exploring here concerns what policy alternatives, if any, would result in greater, more sustainable, benefits for a social majority. Star Spangled Banners analyses how a particular set of factors have been permitted to become the norm, eroding moral authority in the process. I concluded that what is most at stake, and at once the most cruel deception, is the concept and trappings of empire - sustained as it is by an iniquitous economic shock doctrine (appropriately labelled "disaster" capitalism by Naomi Klein) as this is conceived, interpreted, espoused and practiced.

The intertwined pillars of empire and economy have become warped by arrogance and greed: they no longer benefit the masses - still less those of us who advocate radically empathic models of social organisation including peer-to-peer interactions, commons-based institutions, liquid democracy, and the like. These encrusted notions of empire, the same ones being projected by the US onto China - which goes a long way to explain US foreign diplomacy in Asia by the way - are causing strife and anxiety, at home and abroad. Indeed within the US itself, increasing numbers of citizens are dismayed by the systematic erosion of democratic rights, and constraints to their liberty, which were foisted on American society after 9/11 and are still escalating at a pace under the current administration.

My issue, therefore, is not with the American people per se but with the venality in Washington and the corruption that has been allowed to insinuate and embed itself so deeply inside the web of affiliations between major corporations, Congress and the military. The greatest domestic danger, constantly voiced by many of my friends in the US, is a fear that divisions already apparent within society could deepen and eventually erupt into uncontained civil violence. The other major risk is a nation so deluded by its self-importance, driven by hypocrisy and paranoia, that it loses all contact with reality and becomes isolated from the rest of the world as a result.

So, from the point of view of a neutral, though avowedly partially-informed witness like myself, some form of transition is vital in order to restore America's credibility - for its own good, as well as the world at large, where large numbers of people concede the pivotal importance of a strong, healthy and incorruptible US.

And at one level it is pretty clear what must be done. The following strategic themes should not really come as a huge surprise. Any points emphasised here do not offer any startlingly new insights by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary they have been the topic of considered articles and discussions by many reputable commentators. And they have featured as the central motifs in seminal books by writers as diverse as Jeremy Rifkin, Robert Reich and Jeffrey Sachs.  

There are five broad issues that, while ostensibly domestic, actually go to the core of US regression as a moral power in the world. Although I have teased them out here, the nature of their mutual dependence is such that a complex set of unprincipled associations has been created over time. This rusted system of interdependencies manifests over and over as a tainted culture. But it has become so resilient that the likelihood of cultural metamorphosis is now extremely low.

1. Inequities between the super wealthy and the poor - where the average CEO of a large company can take home a salary 400 times the wage of an average worker - is an obscenity that must surely be addressed or remain open to ridicule. Unfortunately the US corporate model sets the tone for many other countries where senior executive salaries are too often based upon repute rather than performance. Personally I can find no way of justifying payments of hundreds of millions of dollars to very mediocre talent when the President of the United States only earns an annual salary of $400,000.

2. As a general rule, Wall Street investment bankers should no longer be encouraged or allowed to determine US economic strategy. Their involvement has been disastrous. Their firms, too, should be kept at arms length from policy makers in Washington and their advice, if called upon, should routinely be treated with suspicion.

3. The squalid ways in which corporate wealth is used to buy political influence (through campaign funding, lobbying and outright graft, for example) deserve to be outlawed. Likewise the abuse of political clout, most obviously through tax cuts, deregulation and sweetheart deals between government and industry, should be considered unconstitutional and dealt with accordingly.

4. Close links between the military and private industry should be examined and the more insidious of these decoupled - if only to avoid the continuation of futile war mongering in foreign lands and the associated squandering of many tens of trillions of dollars that could be put to far better use.

5. By far the most destructive government-industry relationship is that between the large oil companies and the Pentagon. This relationship is responsible for the nation’s dependency on oil as well as the escalating military trap in the Middle East. Big Oil has consistently and successfully fought the intrusion of competition from other energy sources (including nuclear, wind and solar power) while maliciously pushing confusing propaganda aimed at keeping climate change off the national agenda. Similarly the relationship with Big Pharma and government has resulted in a pseudo-market system where medical costs remain excessively high and large profits are made by the private healthcare sector.

This perusal, though cursory, should not be treated as an assault on US values, still less on American citizens, but rather a starting point for stepping into new epistemologies in order to reinvent what, for many people, is a story of human decline rather than an illumined pathway to a future of abundance and hope.

Normally the energy within any complex adaptive system can be altered in precise ways through a forensic interrogation aimed at identifying constraints that are causing the system to behave predictably - such as the five points above. I have no idea whether the system of bully empire can be rescued given the levels of corruption and decay that are so evident. I do know that the only chance of this happening is by the US itself crafting strategies so smart that, through the tiniest of nudges, the basic architecture of its politics and metasystem shifts inexorably away from the current dominant meme.

Inevitably this will be resisted by the dominant players - until the US implodes under pressures of its own making or is forced to pay attention as the rest of the world simply shuns Brand America. Which brings us back to Game Theory.

Do not for a moment underestimate the doomsday scenario - the implosion and decline of the US empire - as a possibility. The more the US sows mistrust and is perceived to be more of a menace than a benign force for good, around the world and within its own borders, the greater will become the general interest of others to betray America. If the catalogue of strategic mistakes continues to escalate and America basks in the illusion of previous glory, the more likely this scenario will become. The US needs to undertake a cultural course correction before other nations decide betrayal is the better option.