Skip to main content

I've been talking about "paradigm shift" a lot lately, much to the annoyance of people who are tired of seeing that rubric misused and overused. But bear with me, because it is apt and irreplaceable sometimes, and one of those times is now.

If you haven't already read the introduction to Tony Judt's new book, Ill Fares The Land, do it now. Judt has written with the urgency of a man gravely ill who knows his time is likely to be brief. The result is not a polemic, but a clear-eyed, heartwrenching appeal to awaken from the trance of hypercapitalism and rescue the notion of common good before it is trampled to death in the pursuit of material self-interest. It is simple and clear and to me, undeniably true.

When historian of science Thomas Kuhn proposed the term "paradigm shift" for a change of scientific consensus, he meant something precise: A paradigm shift takes place when an older system of understanding can no longer hold newly emerging knowledge. If you are certain the earth is flat, and evidence accumulates that ships sailing over the farthest horizon return, rather than plunging into nothingness, your old model of planetary reality shatters, making way for a new one.

How can you tell when a new model is emerging? How about when all around you, smart and articulate people are writing things that have the exact tone and character of awakening from slumber? Judt's piece reproduces that eye-blinking, "Where am I?" experience, in which a confusing blur gives way to a startling clarity. A mass of detail falls away. It reveals the simplicity obscured by what Nassim Nicholas Taleb so aptly calls our "expert problem," or "empty suit problem," a tendency to fall for impressive-sounding nonsense packaged in gray flannel and power ties.

I'm not talking about awakening to a bright, clean new reality, where all our problems have been magically solved. Anyone who tells you that is possible is trying to sell you an illusion, like Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign of 1984. In truth, every moment has its "thematic universe," as the late, great Paulo Freire explained: a clash of ideas, values, forces that together characterize it—fundamentalism meeting relativism, sensitivities meeting blind spots, kindling the spark that fuels the spirit of the times.

So yes, the vicious anti-immigrant feeling I wrote about a few days ago persists, rattling around our thematic universe and bumping into the astounding mobility of people and cultures that also marks our moment. We are more sensitive than ever to the need for environmental healing, even as offshore drilling spreads death and destruction in its wake. Tipping points are thick on the ground, and each of us must decide whether to put our weight on the side of emergent possibility, or lean in the other direction in the hope of slowing change.

But almost every day, I read or hear something gorgeously free of the encrusted cant of the old paradigm, something packed with information that the old paradigm simply can't contain. It is an interesting fact of human discourse that we are more persuaded by the words of the repentant sinner than by those of the virtuous sage. It is intrinsically easier to believe—or at least derive a sense of possibility from—those who have seen the error of their ways. Diane Ravitch is this month's convert to educational democracy. She has been engaging the wonderful progressive educator Deborah Meier in an online dialogue. Yesterday, she took on the imaginary educational "consensus" purported to underpin President Obama's costly mistake in appropriating $5 billion for his "Race to the Top" in education, which turns what should be the sacred trust of contributing equally to every child's future into a pointless spectacle of winners and losers:

As for the so-called "consensus," it is purely a fiction manufactured by elite opinion-makers, think tanks, and big foundations, the ones I describe in my book as "the billionaire boys' club." All we need, say the cheerleaders for the consensus, is more private management of public schools and more use of test scores to evaluate and reward teachers. Notice that the purveyors of this wrong-headed consensus never point to any other nation as a model. And no wonder: there is none. We are embarked on a radical scheme to deconstruct our public education system, to de-professionalize teaching and supervision, and to turn teachers into data-obsessed functionaries.

Take heart, readers! Despite the massive contradictions of our thematic universe, something is emerging. The old container is crumbling, and the contours of a new paradigm are being revealed. I have been speaking and writing about it wherever I go, especially the emergence of culture as the center of public value and social change. It will be the subject of my new book. Judt and Ravitch focus on political history, the economy, and education. Clear-sighted awakening testimonies are bursting through every field of endeavor, glowing like tulips in spring.

If I had the power to make you remember this—that something is emerging, even as bad news piles up around us—I would use it now, when each of has the choice to be part of the leading wedge. But, in truth, the power is already yours.

Originally posted to arlenegoldbard on Wed May 05, 2010 at 08:02 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting read, one point of contention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How can you tell when a new model is emerging?  How about when all around you, smart and articulate people are writing things that have the exact tone and character of awakening from slumber?

    I disagree with this.  A new model emerges when someone has a better answer.  Take Newton and Einstein.  Einstein would have never garnered an ounce of respect except for the planet Mercury.  Einstein's model of curved space was a better explanation for the orbit of Mercury than Newtonian physics could provide.

    If we look at the dark ages, we see what happens when a new models fails to replace a broken model.  Rome was such an absolute, that its destruction plunged Europe into a regression.

    I agree that capitalism is running aground, but this is far from a paradigm shift.  This is a flawed idea coming to its logical conclusion.  The new realities of globalization and technology create a world where a product can be made and sold so cheaply, that it is no longer worth making.

    If we discovered super efficient solar panels, why would any capitalist invest in them?  There would be no value to energy anymore.  It would be wonderful for people who need energy, but terrible for anyone wanting to sell energy.  There would be no market.

    We do need a new model of valuing goods and labor, but one has yet to emerge.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site