Hello again Michael, First of all I apologize if there is no space between my paragraphs but for some reason the layout gets screwed when you write from an ipad. Second of all, I am the guy that told you was going to read every chapter to see which parts needed some examples. Now, I was gonna do this for last week but your group page was inaccessible for the entire last week. Maybe you fixed it, maybe it only happened to me. So, I have read the Intro now. I think it is in the line of what I meant last time when I talked about analogies, examples and other types of images needed. I found nothing wrong about the introduction. I am not refering to anything that regards editing, I'm sure your publisher will have wiser comments to do than me. I just wanted to add a comment that might be useful. In your intro you quote Poe. Well, the quotation you give is great, but I know of a better one from Poe that fits right with the idea you illustrated with the physics example. It was one of Poe's short stories, the one called The Murders in the Rue Morgue, in which the detective, or at least the man/narrator who becomes one for the purpose of the story, explains why he prefers checkers to chess. He uses thst analogy in the very same fashion that you used physics vs sociology (in that order). He also proceeds to describe an old game called whist as the best one ever, but for the same reasons he did for checkers, so I ll stick to the checkers example. So, basically what he says about checkers is that since the rules are so much simpler and because the game has much less variables than chess, it puts the mind to the test more so than chess. His reason for saying this is that (I am using my own words so far) in checkers it is much easier to predict and to see all the possibilities that each play opens up. In his love for math, the detective/Poe explains how checkers are indeed closer to math (he doesn't say it so plainly but it is the idea). And then he goes on to say that on that basis, players can only prevail through deep analysis and long planning. Perhaps you should go and read for yourself that part, so you don't rely on my approximative summary. You can find it here http://www.online-literature.com/poe/38/?term=Checker You probably have read that story at some point, but I wonder if you remembered that part. Anyway, see you in chapter 1!

Dear Michael,

I tried to redraft your draft with some copy and paste, cancelling parts I feel unnecessary and adding a few lines as a suggestion for editing.
My English remains horrible. I hope that you will get the idea by way of intuition: I try to be of help and I do it the way I'm able to. The risk is that I may seem arrogant. Please be patient, my intentions are good, but, while I can read your language well enough, I'm at a loss when writing.

Giuseppe Volpe

Italy


(My suggestions of additions are in bold characters)

 Our Future

Introduction

 This book means to communicate an array of information, insights, and tools of thought sufficient to empower any reader for intelligently thinking about, planning for, and participating in efforts to create major social change. My claim is that less time will be needed to get you ready for that at a top flight level of competence, even if you have no prior activist and society changing experience, than would be needed to get you ready to handle the intricacies of soccer or cricket at a top flight level of competence, much less physics. 

Briefly, part one of Our Future is about the problems we face in today’s world. How is society organized and why does it need changing? What are its key defining features? What are our attributes, as citizens, given that we grow up and function in society? How do different aspects of society affect us, the citizens? How do we as citizens affect different aspects of society? What is history - why do things change? Why do other things stay unchanged? 

Once we have an overarching picture of where we are at and how to think about society as it changes in time, we will take a look at a few specific elements of society that have special lessons to teach. Then we will conclude part one by understanding some of the benefits and pitfalls of our new social theory.

Part two then proposes our vision. It argues for the value of vision by showing why we need it. It provides some broad vision for six aspects of society - economy, polity, kinship, culture, ecology, and international relations. And all this taken together becomes the second component of our basis for evaluating and settling on social change actions.

Part three of Our Future is about strategy and program and is the longest section in the book. It covers broad principles, themes that arise, specific examples, and some plausible scenarios. It is particularly hard to do well because strategy, tactics, and program, are all overwhelmingly contextual. They change as circumstances change. 

The task with analysis and vision is largely to convey a particular analysis and a particular vision. Because analysis and vision continually need updating and refining, another part of the analysis/vision task is conveying insight into how to be analytical and visionary about new matters or changed situations as they arise. 

For strategy, however, there is no one strategy that is even roughly right to convey as a basis for building on. The whole strategic task is about how to think strategically in diverse settings and as situations change and unfold fluidly, often dramatically, so we have to react on the fly. 

Part four of Our Future, finally, is a conclusion. It outlines some replies advocates of the views in this book might make to people who present doubts about key aspects of the book’s claims. It also presents a succinct way of summarizing the whole message. 

As to the style of writing in Our Future, there is an interesting quotation that runs a bit against the writing stylist’s grain - which, however, comes from a great writer, Edgar Allen Poe - that perhaps best explains our hope. 

“In important topics it is better to be a good deal prolix than even a very little obscure. But abstruseness is a quality appertaining to no subject per se. All are alike, in facility of comprehension, to him who approaches them by properly graduated steps. It is merely because some stepping stone, here and there, is heedlessly left unsupplied in our road to the Differential Calculus, that this is not altogether as simple a thing as a sonnet by Mr. Solomon Seesaw.” 

No Calculus here. No sonnets by Solomon Seesaw here, either. We try to be succinct. If we must err, we try to ensure that it be toward prolix and certainly not toward obscure. Our Future tries to build a conceptual staircase toward informed, empowered participation in social change, with no steps missing.

 

 

A few words in general. “We all want to change the world” but …

Some people think that all that is needed is a vision and  a strong will.  They feel that, quite obviously, there are many practical problems but they feel they are ‘minor’ ones. A little bit of organization, some notions of history, sociology, propaganda etc. and some good companions to help with the quantity will solve everything: it is not a matter of quality.

Other people think : “OK, we all have a vision of what is just and what is unjust. The  problems you have to face, however, are so complicated that you need a whole life to understand them in full and so there remains no time to solve them.”

Some feel it is something like physics (so difficult), some feel it is something like sociology (not that hard).

My idea is that physics is pretty simple while sociology is really difficult. Let me try to explain.

 

Comparing physics and sociology Virtually everyone would say physics is way harder. They look at the texts and journals of the two disciplines and compare - and, indeed, there is really a huge difference in how hard they are to read. In a week or two, a typical citizen can ask cutting edge questions in sociology - or even in a day or two, for those sufficiently confident. The average person can understand a lecture, or even a text pretty much right off. In fact, one can even pose cutting edge questions, and perhaps even propose possible insightful answers, again, virtually immediately. In contrast, in physics it takes years to even get to the point of understanding a text or lecture. To ask cutting edge questions much less to offer remotely sensible answers, is way harder still. So of course it seems that physics is way way harder than sociology. What could be more obvious?

However, the truth is that the opposite is true. Sociology is by a huge margin more difficult than physics, and that is actually why sociology texts are easier to read and become reasonably knowledgable of than physics texts. The point is, sociology is so difficult, as a subject, that we have accomplished relatively little vis a vis understanding anything much about it. As a result, we know so little, at least of deep patterns, that it is rather straightforward to become reasonably adept in addressing sociology issues, understanding sociology formulations, etc. 

Physics, in contrast, is so easy, as a subject - yes, so easy - that we have been able to pile up a huge amount of accurate information and theory regarding its patterns, so much so that to become familiar with even a tiny part of that accumulated knowledge, much less to extend it into new insights, is a massive undertaking. Yes, physics is mathematical - but again, that is due to being simple enough for us to discover patterns that we can summarize in equations - not because physics is so hard, but because it is so easy, relatively. 

Okay, what’s the point? 

I live in New England, in the U.S., Massachusetts, actually. The local football team is the New England Patriots. The coach is Bill Belichek. The playbook for any one game is an immense compendium of incredibly detailed commands and analyses. Knowing all the plays, their details, the roles of each player and the associated logic, plus the intersection of player strengths and weaknesses with on field needs and possibilities including the weaknesses and strengths the other team brings to the game - not to mention knowing budgets, opportunities for trading players, crowd impact, stadium conditions, and so on - is a herculean task. The sport is so amenable to analysis, and is so carefully and comprehensively dissected, that there is a vast body of information, intricately detailed, that extends to great depths, that one need to understand to affect the patterns that arise in football analysis, vision, and strategy. In contrast, because society is so much more complex than football, there is not a massive accumulation of reliable deep insights about its patterns. It is so hard, we don’t know that much about its innards and their relations. Ironically, the analysis, vision, and even strategy of social change that is essential to be a competent participant is more accessible to timely and popular comprehension, what is needed to be adept at football.

And so we come to the point. 

Changing society is not physics, or as we used to say some decades ago, it is not rocket science, or, if you prefer, it is not football. Changing society is more like sociology. It is about daily life and the institutions that we encounter every day, and since everyone’s depth of understanding is limited, most of the information needed about people and social relations to understand and envision and strategize as well as people can, we are already familiar with, or can easily become familiar with. More, our understanding of the dynamics and possibilities of ourselves and of the institutions around us is at best so general, that again it doesn’t take years or decades to get up to speed, including with most careful insights available. 

On the contrary, it turns out that aside from careful application of the insights - and that on the fly practical wisdom is not so easy, at all - and assuming that experts don’t make it obscure by using unneeded fancy formal language, the ideas we need to have in our mental arsenal to be prepared to effectively analyze, envision, and strategize for social change, isn’t meager but nor is it so much that it is out of reach of normal people with typical life pressures. In short, you don’t have to be a social change pro to be really smart about social change - though you do have to be a coaching pro, schooled for years in special ways, or almost, anyhow, to be really smart about a ball club. 

Does that sound implausible? It probably still does. And if I added that I think the typical serious football fan in the U.S. has more in depth conceptual background and analysis of football and analyzes, envisions, and strategizes more deeply about football than the average serious political activist has in depth conceptual background regarding and analyzes, envisions, and strategizes about society, that too would probably sound like poppycock. Fair enough. The proof will be in the pudding. 

 

Add some closing sentences. 

Some initial thoughts.

"Sociology is not rocket science."  Michael, your argument and physics/sports analogy gives that statement a clever, counter-intuitive twist: that is, it's true in the common sense of the phrase (e.g., "High school algebra is not rocket science."), but also true in the unexpected sense that sociology, social planning is far more complex than "mere" rocket science.

But what is the conclusion to be drawn from this? 

The key point of this introductory analogy seems to be that ordinary people don't need to hold back from becoming involved in thinking about how our society and economy works, and planning and working for something better.  After all, if lots of ordinary people with no special training or academic degrees can become expert in football, for gosh sakes, then ordinary people can without inordinate effort certainly pick up enough basic information to participate intelligently in planning for a better society.  After all, it's not rocket science. 

But another, less explicit point seems to be that we can approach such social planning in the same way physicists and other scientists approach their subject: that is, by logical, sequential, step-by-step thinking. That seems to be the point of the Poe quote.  ANY subject can be mastered by "properly graduated steps"; we just have to be careful not to leave any stepping stone along the syllogistic path unsupplied. 

I don't think that's true. Can "thinking" -- in this exclusively left-brain view -- really solve our social problems? 

But perhaps I'm making too much of this.  Surely such logical thinking and analysis HELPS, is necessary, though not sufficient, for a more just society to come into being.  Eisenhower said it succinctly (quoting from memory):  "I have found that in war, plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."  Maybe this is the response to Chomsky's skepticism as to the value of working out detailed plans for what our society should be.

Kemp

 The thing I really like about this intro is the way in which it makes me feel.  The ideas presented made me feel empowered, but also I had a sense of satisfaction.  I think these feelings are related. 
The feeling of empowerment came about as a result of the idea that I can engage in social justice organising without having to undertake any special training.  I just have to apply myself and use my common sense.  If I do this then I should expect to be able to engage with other activists as an equal. 
I think the satisfaction I felt is related to my sense of justice.  My feeling is that many leftwing intellectual actually promote ideas that disempower the working class and empower the coordinator class.  They do this by creating and maintaining elitist intellectual practice and style that makes them sound like they know things about their subject (society) that is beyond the scope of ordinary people. 
Talking about society in the way presented in this intro both undermines this elitist myth and empowers ordinary people.  This is exactly what we need!  

Again, for me, the analogy of a sports team and the contrast of physics and sociology are clear and very useful. Especially considering the vast reach of sports and the deep interest in the politics and strategies of them. 

Perhaps something to expand on is how to use the sports analogy as a discussion tactic with people who otherwise wouldn't have considered their effort and ability to collect sports info as a useful effort and ability to affect social change.

I like that you point out that social change doesn't require folks to be "Pro" and I hope this notion is emphasized throughout the work. 

One tactic that seems to be rarely if ever discussed is small town organizing and building support that is tailored to rural and smaller towns. 

As a personal opinion I find it to be counter-productive to run off to San Fransisco or Baltimore to be an organizer or an activist; in over-saturated areas of activism. Many folks who do such a thing, eventually, become involved in some "professional" styles of organizing - like the push-button, moveon.org, primarily fundraising techniques ... far-removed from the people they want to affect. 

I, too, like the basic analogy of sociology vs physics but I am inclined to ask for a little more clarification. I think that physics is not necessarily easy but is highly specialized. As it's scope is primarily mathematic, it requires one who has a propensity and drive for such things, not just the education, to build on the string of previous research and theory. Contrasted with sociology, we are all human and can thus relate with the experience of our own lives, our basic needs and current points of reference. 

 

The difficulty then becomes relating the infinite interpretations of 7 billion team members each with unique experiences vs a more finite path of a small group of specialists. That is certainly where a book of this nature becomes applicable, to identify the primary components we can all relate to and the need for "tools of thought sufficient to empower" and "think strategically." As society goes, it is not necessary to be a specialist and perhaps even counter productive, rather to free ourselves from reliance on what passes for society's specialists (politicians, mainstream media, corporations and trade orgs etc).

 

Based on this and stepping a little further into your next sections I offer a couple pennies, not necessarily knowing the specifics to be covered in the book. I see it as our task to shatter many of the current myths imposed on the general public that provide the most benefit for the specialists that champion them. Mixed with historical contexts we have the basis for analytical thinking. It seems to me the catch-22 of any cultural shift is breaking free of damaging cultural norms we consider natural simply by being raised within that culture. If we grew up in a culture that viewed wealth accumulation as we culturally view slavery, then the drive to build wealth would be the anomaly, and we would actively seek to prevent it. 

 

While I concede that slavery is alive and well, particularly that which has been exported, we have clearly changed our mass belief since pre Civil War era, a society that accepted and protected that status quo. Perhaps that example also highlights an important aspect of developing analytical tools, overcoming the fear of change and respective defense mechanisms especially when one's livelihood is at stake. If our task is to minimize hierarchy, then people must attain the skills to ask some basic questions about the benefits of the current systems. But perhaps even more important is the ability to question their own answers, where they derive their beliefs, if there might be a better answer, and if so, where can they look for further understanding. This is the process of analytical thinking that I feel is generally discouraged in our current culture. Question your teacher bad, pledge allegiance good. Nothing, I believe, will serve our future better than to encourage free thinking and healthy debate- cornerstone to participatory society.

Reactions to the introduction and table of contents...

I'm hesitant to say anything much because "Introduction" chapters are summarily more concise and superficial than the meat of any text.  In that case, I'd prefer to emphasize what I see as a strong point in order to underscore where further elaboration is either unnecessary in this particular chapter or, contrarily, would be desirable in later chapters as elaborate content and context.

I think the physics versus sociology example is an effective taste of things to come.  In particular, I'm interested to see how those who grasp onto a subject so quickly because it is "simpler" to understand might actually be part of the problem considering the real complexity beneath the surface.  For instance, I browse through a Sociology 101 primer and may then haphazardly apply that knowledge to other contexts.  I believe we have seen this with "broken window" as well as "social darwinism" theories where the relative simplicity of the idea underestimates the complexity of human relations when applied as public policy and perhaps - less codified - even with parenting practices.

Oddly enough, even the Right has had trouble with this apparently.  Nathaniel Branden - a mentee of Ayn Rand's - has rejected some of the lifestyle aspects of objectivism since he became integrated into a career with psychology.  His experience was that Randian fans sought him out for relationship counseling because they were miserable with their partners.  They were distraught that their common interest in objectivism wasn't enough to sustain a healthy romantic partnership.  Rand's characters would talk objectivism constantly and in many relationships this fueled their passion for one another.  What Branden had to point out to his clients was that Rand didn't write about the other 23 hours of the day when they had to small talk about who was picking up groceries next, what the smell was, or other coexistential minutiae involved in everyday life.

Back to the chapter, I think this chapter is an effective attempt to relax the reader to some of the more challenging content that is inevitable later on.