On July 9, Pope Francis addressed the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia). In that speech, he built on his recent Encyclical letter, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, by emphasizing that saving the planet will require organized action from the bottom up. In Bolivia, he said:

People and their movements are called to cry out, to mobilize and to demand – peacefully, but firmly – that appropriate and urgently-needed measures be taken. … In conclusion, I would like to repeat: the future of humanity does not lie solely in the hands of great leaders, the great powers and the elites. It is fundamentally in the hands of peoples and in their ability to organize.

Laudato Si’ offers a deep and complex basis for this conclusion. I do not agree with all of it, and I think a serious response to the Pope’s call for dialogue across religious and ethical traditions requires us to share both our agreements and our dissents. But I believe Laudato Si’ is one of the most thoughtful, deeply rooted, and potentially powerful statements of our century so far. It does not reflect the Pope’s opinions alone, but–as the notes indicate–it summarizes a whole internal discussion that is valuable to people outside the church as well.

The title is a quotation from St. Francis, that “attractive and compelling figure, whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when I was elected Bishop of Rome.” My wife and I were just in St. Francis’ country for two weeks, visiting not only Assisi but a cell that he apparently built with his own hands in a remarkably verdant forest outside of Cortona. One sees evidence everywhere of the revolutionary early years of the Franciscan order.

Although not a believer, I have long acknowledged St. Francis as a world-historical figure, not only because of his theological and political (i.e., radically pro-poor) views, but also because he responded to a new sociological reality–the growth of cities–by building a new kind of institution/social movement, an order of mendicant friars. Unlike traditional monks, friars worked directly and daily in communities. The Franciscans and their rivals, the Dominicans, were primarily responsible for building the public-service institutions of the high middle ages, including universities, schools, hospitals, and charity homes. So Francis is an apt inspiration for the current pope, especially as he calls for new forms of civic organization.

In my own view, our current environmental crisis has many causes, but they fall into two broad categories. The first category involves rules and incentives. The global political economy is so organized that it pays to pollute. That is true for individuals (who benefit directly from releasing carbon and other pollutants and share only a tiny bit in the cost); for countries (which have radically different abilities to produce and use carbon and radically different vulnerabilities to climate change); and for generations (since exploitation today hurts those not yet alive).

As Francis writes, “The natural environment is a collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone.” Collective goods must be governed in such a way that contributions are rewarded and exploitation has costs. For instance–I would argue–taxing carbon and spending the proceeds equitably would change the incentives so that people cut carbon consumption. The word “tax” does not appear in Laudato Si. I am not sure why the Holy Father doesn’t endorse taxes as part of his position. But I do share his view that all the talk about new rules and incentives hasn’t gone very far so far:

It is remarkable how weak international political responses have been. The failure of global summits on the environment make it plain that our politics are subject to technology and finance. There are too many special interests, and economic interests easily end up trumping the common good and manipulating information so that their own plans will not be affected.

The failure (so far) of international political agreements is–unfortunately–very easy to explain. Just as individuals and nations have incentives to pollute, they have disincentives to enter agreements that would reduce their pollution.

That is why, in the absence of pressure from the public and from civic institutions, political authorities will always be reluctant to intervene, all the more when urgent needs must be met. To take up these responsibilities and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mindset of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics. But if they are courageous, they will attest to their God-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. A healthy politics is sorely needed, capable of reforming and coordinating institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure and bureaucratic inertia. It should be added, though, that even the best mechanisms can break down when there are no worthy goals and values, or a genuine and profound humanism to serve as the basis of a noble and generous society.

The second category of problems (already hinted at above) involves subjective beliefs and attitudes:

Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions. We require a new and universal solidarity.

Some (including an outright majority of members of the Senate of the most powerful country on earth) actually deny that humans are causing dangerous climate change. Others accept the evidence but don’t take it fully seriously as something that should affect their daily behavior and their political priorities.

Pope Francis recognizes both sources of problems: 1) bad rules and incentives, and 2) problematic attitudes and priorities of human beings.

The problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis. We lack leadership capable of striking out on new paths and meeting the needs of the present with concern for all and without prejudice towards coming generations. The establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable; otherwise, the new power structures based on the techno-economic paradigm may overwhelm not only our politics but also freedom and justice.

The Pope is, however, much less focused on rules and laws than on the culture of denial and its spiritual roots in consumerism, scientism, selfishness, and human-centeredness. He cites the leader of today’s Orthodox churches, Patriarch Bartholomew, who “has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.”

In fact, Francis is sometimes dismissive of practical reforms that I would endorse. For instance:

The strategy of buying and selling ‘carbon credits’ can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors.

I see this danger, but if a cap-and-trade system set appropriately low caps, it would provide incentives to reduce global carbon production. I don’t share the Pope’s view that the only truly “radical” change is spiritual, although I think his diagnosis of our spiritual condition is valuable and perceptive–and he is right that by treating nature better, we can improve our own inner lives. “Such sobriety, when lived freely and consciously, is liberating. It is not a lesser life or one lived with less intensity. On the contrary, it is a way of living life to the full.”

It would be unfair to the Pope to think that he is simply calling for changes in personal beliefs and priorities:

Self-improvement on the part of individuals will not by itself remedy the extremely complex situation facing our world today. Isolated individuals can lose their ability and freedom to escape the utilitarian mindset, and end up prey to an unethical consumerism bereft of social or ecological awareness. Social problems must be addressed by community networks and not simply by the sum of individual good deeds.

He argues that spiritual transformation must manifest itself both at the personal level and in large, impersonal institutions such as states and markets. At the end of this sentence, he quotes Pope Benedict: “Love for society and commitment to the common good are outstanding expressions of a charity which affects not only relationships between individuals but also ‘macro-relationships, social, economic and political ones.’” (See my post “friendship and politics” for some thoughts on that matter.)

Pope Francis recognizes the value of political diversity and debate; he does not want everyone to join one big social movement. “On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.” He is also open to a division of labor, in which some are more deeply involved in civic work than others:

Not everyone is called to engage directly in political life. Society is also enriched by a countless array of organizations which work to promote the common good and to defend the environment, whether natural or urban. Some, for example, show concern for a public place (a building, a fountain, an abandoned monument, a landscape, a square), and strive to protect, restore, improve or beautify it as something belonging to everyone. Around these community actions, relationships develop or are recovered and a new social fabric emerges.

However, despite his (welcome) endorsement of political pluralism and diversity, the Pope does want all of us to organize–both to put pressure on powerful organizations and to change prevailing cultures and values. This is a powerful and timely message.

See also: the cultural change we would need for climate justice; where is the public on climate change?; and a different approach to human problems.

The post the encyclical Laudato Si and the power of peoples to organize appeared first on Peter Levine.

(I will be on vacation and not posting until July 14.)

The post offline appeared first on Peter Levine.

These were my remarks at the opening of Frontiers (#Demfront) last evening:

Welcome to the United States if you come from overseas, and to Massachusetts if you come from out of state.

Welcome to Boston, and specifically to Boston’s Chinatown, which is our host community tonight.

Welcome to Tufts University. We also have a leafy campus about seven miles from here in Medford, Mass.. You are always welcome in Medford, but we’re pleased to meet tonight in Tufts’ Boston campus.

Welcome to the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service. Tisch College is your host and a co-convenor of this conference. Our dean, Alan Solomont, will talk in a little while about Tisch College, so I will leave the substance to him.

One very close and partner in co-organizing this event is the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, led by Matt Leighninger. Matt’s work is wide-ranging, but an important focus is public engagement in local governance.

Another essential partner is The Democracy Imperative, led by Nancy Thomas, who now also works full-time with us at Tisch College. TDI focuses on democracy in higher education.

Matt and Nancy organized a fantastic conference in 2008 called No Better Time. Frontiers 2014 is the direct descendent of No Better Time. Some version of the conference has occurred every year without a break since ’08. I see many faces from No Better Time here seven years later.

Added to the mix since 2009 has been our colleague Karol Soltan, a political scientist from the University of Maryland, who co-founded and co-teaches the Summer Institute of Civic Studies with me at Tisch College. Twenty-two of the people present here tonight form the 2014 Summer Institute. We have been spending six-and-a half hours every day for the past two weeks discussing advanced theoretical work on citizenship. This year’s group comprises scholars and practitioners from Chile, Mexico, Liberia, Zimbabwe, China, the Netherlands, and Singapore. More than 120 others have taken the Summer Institute in past years, and about a dozen of those alumni are also here tonight. Tisch College’s Sarah Shugars, Summer Institute class of 2013, played an important role in organizing alumni to design some of the sessions for this conference.

Last but not least—in fact, last and most, is Tisch College’s Kathy O’Connor, who organized all the logistics and practicalities of this conference and also helped shape the substance. Special thanks to Kathy.

A few words about Civic Studies, since that is a phrase that may be new to you—but it is rapidly spreading.

Civic Studies originated with a 2007 manifesto that was written by Harry Boyte, Karol Soltan, and several other distinguished scholars. It called for an emerging discipline or intellectual community that would reorient the social sciences and humanities.

Civic Studies is already producing a stream of publications and events. The editor of the chief Civic Studies journal, The Good Society, is here—Josh Miller. The Summer Institute at Tufts now has a sister institute in Ukraine and a developing partnership with Tecnologico de Monterrey in Mexico.

We like to say that Civic Studies is the intellectual component of civic renewal, which is the movement to improve societies by engaging their citizens.

The goal of civic studies is to develop ideas and ways of thinking helpful to citizens, understood as co-creators of their worlds. We do not define “citizens” as official members of nation-states or other political jurisdictions. Nor does this formula invoke the word “democracy.” One can be a co-creator in many settings, ranging from loose social networks and religious congregations to the globe. Not all of these venues are, or could be, democracies.

Civic studies asks “What should we do?” It is thus inevitably about ethics (what is right and good?), about facts (what is actually going on?), about strategies (what would work?), and about the institutions that we co-create. Good strategies may take many forms and use many instruments, but if a strategy addresses the question “What should we do?”, then it must guide our own actions–it cannot simply be about how other people ought to act.
Civic Studies emphasizes agency, which Harry and colleagues have defined “as effective and intentional action that is conducted in diverse and open settings in order to shape the world around us.”

Thanks to the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and the broader networks around it, the students and alumni of the Civic Studies Institute are joined here this evening by many practitioners of “dialogue and deliberation,” meetings and processes that bring people together to talk about public issues.

Thanks to the Democracy Imperative and Tisch College itself, we are joined by many civic educators who work in elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and community settings.

A substantial subset of our participants today are primarily concerned with media—both traditional and new—and how they can support or frustrate civic life.

By the time the conference is over, we will have heard from at least four current office-holders who are working to make government more engaging and responsive.

And we are delighted to welcome others of diverse backgrounds and views, including people who will make explicit critiques of dialogue and deliberation, of civic education of various kinds, of media, and of theoretical scholarship.

Critique is good. Our problems are much too serious for us to be complacent or to settle into intellectual conformity. I, for one, am deeply dissatisfied with the strategies and moral frameworks available today and eagerly looking forward to alternatives.

I think we are pretty good at creating little spaces where voluntary participants can have rewarding political experiences, but we have very weak ideas about how to transform large systems or how to engage people who are not raising their hands to join civic life.

I think we are increasingly thoughtful about the people who are excluded from conventional politics, and we are getting better at including some of those individuals in concrete activities, but we have few ideas about how to transform politics so that it is really better for all.

I think we have reasonably impressive theories of civic engagement—how and why people participate—but very weak theories about how and why societies change for the better.

I think we have powerful diagnoses and critiques of government, of the mass media, of education, and of global markets, but we are very short on solutions that involve ordinary people as agents of change.

We know, for instance, that human beings are dangerously heating the world by burning carbon. We understand the social causes of that behavior. We know that if governments taxed carbon, they would solve the problem. We also know that if people experienced the kinds of spiritual changes that Pope Francis eloquently invited, they would solve the problem. But we have a much harder time explaining how we—the people actually gathered together in a space like this one—can achieve changes of policy or transformations of the spirit at large scales.

The framing statement of the conference acknowledges our difficult circumstances. It begins, “While powerful forces work against justice and civil society around the world. …” But then the good news: “committed and innovative people strive to understand and improve citizens’ engagement with government, with community, and with each other. Every year, Frontiers of Democracy convenes some of these practitioners and scholars for organized discussions and informal interactions. … Devoted to new issues and innovative solutions, this conference is truly at the frontiers of democracy.” …

Not that many other spaces gather as much talent and passion in the cause of civic renewal. The group gathered here is an asset. This gathering is an opportunity. We must make the most of it. We have about 14 hours together. Let’s move the frontiers of democracy.

The post my opening remarks at Frontiers of Democracy 2015 appeared first on Peter Levine.

When the Summer Institute of Civic Studies ends today, the Frontiers of Democracy 2015 conference begins.  The plenary talks will be live-streamed here. A batch of the talks begin this evening at 5:45 pm. The whole agenda is here. You could also follow the conversation on Twitter @TischCollege, #DemFront

The post Frontiers of Democracy 2015 appeared first on Peter Levine.