Your thoughts needed: Where does equality fit in Transition?

i think social justice is core to Transtion because (1) the poor will suffer most from both peak oil and climate change and (2) what happens to future generations is a justice issue. My experience is that most Transitioners come from a background which is passionate about social justice.

In the proposed formulation I would oppose the use of the word 'happiness'. In our society it is much too weak a word, evoking Disney and the 'aw shucks' US cartoon. I understand what is intended by it - to replace economic 'efficiency' as the be all and end all, but happiness is stomach churning.

 Something like 'life fulfilling' needs to go in instead, or 'life affirming and life fulfilling'.

tim gorringe

>In the UK, less than 30% believe that “most other people can be trusted”.  In France, it’s >just over 20%, in Portugal it’s just 10%.  In general, in countries that have a higher level >of income equality, there are higher levels of trust.

I find these figures surprising TBH - I had always assumed the opposite, countries like FR and PT had higher levels of social equality and community spirit than the UK. I'd even heard this from people in environment/alternative movements who have migrated to these nations from the UK.

Is there a source for this info, preferably one including other European nations such as NL, DK, DE, NO, SE etc whose democratically elected governments have also placed a certain emphasis on social equality?

As for Transition including equality I have no objection to this - though I strongly feel that the "riots" (whilst caused to an extent by social inequality) should be viewed as a rise of criminality limited to crowded city areas of England and a few other areas where there are already social problems caused by the overuse of drugs and a culture of hedonism seeking, lack of self discipline amongst young people as well as any lack of community spirit/equality

Its as important to look at the areas where there was relatively little trouble -areas as diverse as Brighton and Hove (despite the strong drugs culture, so whatever the Greens are doing there must be working!) and Ipswich (where a combination of Police surveillance of the Internet social networks and targeted monitoring of potential offenders nipped any trouble in the bud). also other countries of the UK remained unscathed, with disturbances confined to England.

At the same time its important not to play down the significance or scale of the crimes committed, or the long term effects - offenders were targeting their own neighbours and destroying their businesses and properties.

The sheer level of anger and nihilism that causes people to turn to this is perhaps hard to imagine amongst those who are maybe older or have been brought up in a "think positive eco friendly" progressive middle class left wing environment - but it is out there amongst the youth.

I've recently seen it manifest itself at "happy/friendly" events such at parties and raves - its even happened at well run licensed events despite security measures and is most unpleasant and often results in physical violence being used - however its hitherto been confined within groups of young people and thus often gone unnoticed outside their circles or (in extreme circumstances) the NHS staff and Police who have to pick up the pieces.

If such a crimewave re-occurs in the near future a "transition Friendly" business will be just as likely to get its windows stoved in and stock robbed and the place trashed/set on fire as one where the owner was a pro-free market/capitalism Tory Councillor.

So it is most important to prevent this happening but not an easy task.

In reality Transition and involvement in other similar groups does not appeal to many younger people outside those who might broadly viewed be viewed as "hippies" - its seen as "boring nerdy hippy stuff" whilst the others want cars, trainers, electronic gadgets etc.

Many have now proven they will now even fight to take this stuff unless its defended by "hard authority" - be that lines of policemen or even ethnic minority shopkeepers defending their family businesses with improvised weapons, or other white skinned vigilantés in the streets of some parts of London purported to be from hard right groups  - the presence of this last group were overlooked in previous replies otherwise celebrating what was vigilanté activity by other ethnic groups - also that people were in fact hurt and killed on both sides across England. Whilst everyone has a right to self defence there is no "bright side" here - we are supposed to have a modern Police service to deal with crime and which can work within our multicultural society, and the vigilanté action happened due to perceived failings of this public service we all pay for.

I am also very unsure after these disturbances  as to how some young folk will "cope" with issues such as peak oil and other goods shortages - the result may not be pleasant! 

Perhaps the best case is that they are (same as in mainstream society) shown that social boundaries exist, and there are penalties for crossing them - they may not be able to be "converted" totally but may begrudgingly realise they do not have the balance of power within any society, even a seemingly "softer" one that Transition appears to encourage, and if they wish to "protest" they should do so through proper channels.

Another important factor is that both the progressive media and the cops actually agree (a rare occurence!) that very few (if any) of the recent criminals had any links to the student/youth/environmental protests of last year or previous such protests. This was nothing but a "riot for consumerism" confined to a small sub section of "deprived" youth.

But even the "hippy" young people clearly don't want to get too involved with "harder work" such as CSAs or even organising meetings - or perhaps they can't as they work long hours simply to survive and genuinely don't have the time or energy.

its perhaps understandable they just want hedonism after this (albeit a gentler form) - I am still young(ish) and felt much that way myself until a few years ago when I got involved in Transition.

Perhaps some youth are currently too sapped of energy to get deeply involved in comparison to a middle aged person in a management position in a public sector organisation or large corporate or a retired person (these last two groups of people making up the bulk of many Transition groups). 

It may well be here that Transition first needs to address the issue of "inequality"  - otherwise the movement cannot grow to the strength needed to move forward.

Alex

 Delighted to see this topic receiving additional attention. Equity (a better term than equality for many reasons) is a fundamental determinant of population health, as demonstrated by numerous epidemiological studies. 

Putting equity more visibly central within the core mission of the Transition movement would help counter one of the most frequent objections I hear from people who get the need for transition work but question the merit of emphasizing working at the local level: "won't this increase inequality as better resourced communities work on their own futures to the exclusion of other less fortunate communities, in effect creating a kind of 'gated community in transition'?"

A clear articulation of the many compelling reasons to make equity central to transition efforts urgently needs to be made, if it does not already exist. It could conceivably include (but not be limited to): (a) equity is the strongest documented determinant of population health (see WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health for a compelling summary of the evidence); (b) diversity (socioeconomic and other) is crucial to successful transition; (c) sharp and growing inequity is a major driver of social unrest, social distrust, and failure to collaborate (meaningful dialogue across difference is possible, but more challenging when differences are sharp); (d) equity promotes social cohesion, solidarity (the most well off currently think they can buy their way out of any crisis -  a stronger sense that we're all in this together is required for effective collaboration across differences); (e) equity is both a goal and means of Transition; (f) converging threats to social and health equity (climate change, peak oil, economic instability, etc) have the capacity to undo gains in other areas (the UNDP estimates that climate change alone has the capacity to undo 20+ years of anti-poverty work around the world). I'm sure much more could be said about each of these points, and more points made. 

I'm really hoping that the forthcoming update to the Transition Handbook addresses this hands on. We must also go beyond politically correct motherhood-and-apple-pie statements about equity and inclusion to address the very practical issues involved in building equity at the local level (and how to bridge to inter-local equity work and the progressive left more generally). Most environmental groups (and Transition movement, at least here in North America seems no different) are populated mostly by white middle-class. We have a lot of work to do in reaching out and diversifying the movement. Most people in this movement, however, have barely a clue about how to do this. Practical advice an tools are urgently needed, as well as inspiring examples. 

On a related note, the core elements of the Transition movement need to be rethought for/by the global South, where the message of frugality etc is viewed with suspicion as a tool of the global North designed to keep the global South underdeveloped (while we continue to enjoy the lion's share of the planet's resources). If the Transition message is to spread compellingly beyond the global North (and even, I would argue, if it restricts itself to the global North), issues of global North-South equity must urgently be addressed. Numerous commentators note emphatically that historic and ongoing North-South inequity and resultant mistrust threatens to prevent and undo any hope of meaningful global cooperation on climate change or resource allocation.

I think I've said enough for now. Looking forward to a vibrant dialogue on this issue!

blake

(Transition Oakville, Go Local Oakville, Halton Green Screens, Dalla Lana School of Public Health/University of Toronto, Environmental Health Justice in the City research network)

 I think it should be somewhat wider than inequality, I think it should include all human rights. This is something that I proposed in the early days of Transition Brighton & Hove, that we should add human rights to the quick one-liner, for the good and simple reason that there are solutions to the problem of climate change and depletion of fossil fuels that would work perfectly well for a few people, to the detriment of many others. Unfortunately the suggestion fell by the wayside, because it was made at a meeting where we were listing our principles, and what emerged from the meeting is that there were precious few common principles among those present... which came as a shock to some people, though I had noticed that already myself.

My definition of Transition has always been: A banner for projects that are all of the following:

1. Local

2. Reduce dependence on fossil fuels

3. Bring change directly, not indirectly through pressuring other big organizations to do something

4. Respect human rights and justice, as understood by the majority of residents in the location

5. Aspire to be part of a strategic local plan with wide input from all residents in the location (the EDAP, but not necessarily by that name or done by Transition people)

As I see it, if a project fulfills all of those (or at least the first four, while there is no clear candidate for an EDAP), it's a Transition project, whether they call themselves that or not. Likewise, if a project calls itself "Transition" but fails on those criteria, it isn't really a Transition project.

If I was involved in the running of the Transition Network, if I heard of a Transition initiative that was failing on those criteria, I would consider removing them from the list of Transition initiatives, but I have never heard that it's been seriously considered for any Transition initiative. Though some Transition initiatives seem to be morphing in standard climate change groups, that are really not (1) or (3), others seem to be sliding so far away from the original idea that it's questionable whether they are about (2), and the internal fights in others suggest that (4) might not really be in the minds of some people.

 I refer to Blake's comment that equity is a better term than equality.

I have some legal training but my area of practice is town planning so I am not intimately familiar with the legal difference if that is the point being made. Blake, I generally support most of the points you make and I would appreciate your comments as to why you believe equity is superior to equality.

My understanding is that equity arose because of the complexity of the common law and initially related to the objective decisions of the king that were intended to provide some fairness when the courts became tangled in their own processes. It was about shifting from the technical wording of the law in certain circumstances to provide fairness.

My concern with this is that fairness is about treating everyone the same. People should not be treated the same. We try too much to be average or normal. Also a community of equals don't relate to each other as a king or a government would relate to people. A king or government has to treat everyone the same because it can't know each person individually and treat each according to their talents and their needs.

A community of equals treats each other as equals. That means everyone looks at everyone else at the same level. Their are no superiors or inferiors in the public relationships. (This is different to private relationship, where for example, children, students and apprentices must obey parents and teachers.) In the public realm, we are all equals. This means we should contribute equally and deserve to benefit from the produce of the community equally. When we look at each other in this way we will be more compassionate and accepting of flaws and we will also allow each person to distinguish themselves according to their talents. In this way we are free to show how we are different rather than trying to be the same.

I hope this helps provide an alternative view.