Trends Newsletter

We’ve tried liberalism and conservatism and now we’re trying populism. Maybe the next era of public life will be defined by a resurgence of localism.

Localism is the belief that power should be wielded as much as possible at the neighborhood, city and state levels. Localism is thriving — as a philosophy and a way of doing things — because the national government is dysfunctional while many towns are reviving. Politicians in Washington are miserable, hurling ideological abstractions at one another, but mayors and governors are fulfilled, producing tangible results.

Localism is also thriving these days because many cities have more coherent identities than the nation as a whole. It is thriving because while national politics takes place through the filter of the media circus, local politics by and large does not. It is thriving because we’re in an era of low social trust. People really have faith only in the relationships right around them, the change agents who are right on the ground.

Since it will probably be the coming wave, I thought it might be useful to make a few notes on localism:

Localism is truly a revolution. It literally means flipping the power structure. For the past several decades, money, talent and power have flowed to the centers of national power. Politicians tried to ascend to national office as they advanced their careers. Smart young people flocked to national universities, and then to New York and D.C. The federal government assumed greater and greater control of American life.

But under localism, the crucial power center is at the tip of the shovel, where the actual work is being done. Expertise is not in the think tanks but among those who have local knowledge, those with a feel for how things work in a specific place and an awareness of who gets stuff done. Success is not measured by how big you can scale, but by how deeply you can connect.

Under localism, national politicians are regarded like generals in Tolstoy novels. They move pieces around the board, but the actual battle is nothing like what they imagine. Wise young people leave the centers for towns where they can make a visible difference.

Localism is not federal power wielded on a smaller scale. It’s a different kind of power. The first difference is epistemological. The federal policymaker asks, “What can we do about homelessness?” The local person asks Fred or Mary what they need in order to have a home. These different questions yield different results. The federal person sees things that can be reduced to data. The local person sees things that can be reduced to data but also things that cannot.

The second difference is relational. Federal power is impersonal, uniform, abstract and rule-oriented. Local power is personalistic, relational, affectionate, irregular and based on a shared history of reciprocity and trust. A national system rewards rational intelligence. A local system requires emotional intelligence, too.

Change happens differently. Federal change often means big shifts quickly, such as when a big law is passed after a long debate, like Obamacare or tax reform. Local change happens more gradually, more iteratively. There’s a legacy system, like a public school, a grocery story or an investment fund. Somebody breaks free from the system and creates an innovative alternative, like a charter school, an organic farm market or a crowdsource campaign. As Leo Linbeck of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism describes, the new innovators “announce the availability of the upgrade and then allow users to choose when to make the switch.” There’s a conversation between the legacy system and the innovator, as the former learns from and adapts to the alternative. Change happens through the conversation between old and new.

There is a different division of labor for making change. As impact investor Deborah Frieze put it in a 2015 TEDx talk, change is led by Walk Outs. These are people who leave the legacy system and pioneer new alternatives. Then there are Illuminators. These are people who analyze and bring attention to the change that is now available.

I’d highlight two other social roles. Elders are the city mothers and fathers who hold sway in the town because of their established positions. The Elders support the Walk Outs, make room for them and reform old systems. Then there are Network Entrepreneurs. They link the Walk Outs, who tend to be lonely, overworked and short-staffed. They help the Walk Outs build a support system and a way to exchange knowledge and care.

Change in a localist world often looks like a renewal of old forms, which were often more intimate and personalistic than the technocratic structures of the past 50 years. Localism stands for the idea that there is no one set of solutions to diverse national problems. Instead, it brings conservatives and liberals together around the thought that people are happiest when their lives are enmeshed in caring face-to-face relationships, building their communities together.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. David Brooks became an Op-Ed columnist in 2003. His column appears every Tuesday and Friday. He is currently a commentator on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and is also a best-selling author.

Preview YouTube video How I Became a Localist | Deborah Frieze | TEDxJamaicaPlain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTdZSPBRRE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Localist Revolution

地方主義的革命：有時候，在細微的小事上用心會看到成果

Sometimes, it pays off to sweat the small stuff

By David Brooks, Opinion Columnist, New York Times, July 19, 2018

我們試過自由主義(liberalism)和保守主義(conservatism)，現在我們在試民粹主義 (populism)。或許下一個公務世代會是地方主義的再度興起。

地方主義的理念就是權力應該下放到當地，到城鎮、州郡的層級。

地方主義正盛行，成為一種意識形態，一種做事的方式，因為國家政府的運作失能，許多城鎮也開始硬起來。華府的政治人物很慘，彼此咬著意識形態不放，但是市長和州長們卻成就感滿滿，產出有感的成效。

地方主義之所以盛行，也因為許多都市的認同感比整個國家還要強，也因為全國性的政策都要透過像馬戲團的媒體來傳達，而當地的政策卻不是如此運作。地方主義的盛行，是因為我們身處一個社會信任度低迷的世代，人們只對周圍的關係感到信任，他們相信的是那些在地的變革促成者。

既然地方主義可能是下一波的趨勢，或許我可以在這裡做一點說明，會有所幫助：

地方主義真的是一場革命。因為它顛覆了整個權力結構。在過去幾十年來，金錢、人力與權力都集中在中央政府上。地方政治人物努力想要擠到中央政府機關，聰明的學生拼命想要擠進國立大學，然後到紐約、華盛頓這些大都市。聯邦政府對美國人的生活有更多的控制。

但是在地方主義，權力中心是實務的層面。專業能力不是在智庫，而是對當地熟悉的人，對於當地的運作比較熟悉，可以把事情做好。成功不是取決於你多有權勢，而是你在當地的耕耘有多深。

在地方主義的運作下，中央政府的政治人物被視為托爾斯泰小說裡的將軍，紙上談兵，但是真正的戰爭跟他們想像的完全不同。聰明的年輕人選擇來到鄉鎮，可以真正有所貢獻。

地方主義並不是中央政府權力結構的縮影，是一種不同的權力。第一個差別就是認識論(epistemological)的層面。中央政府決策者提問：「我們能為無殼蝸牛做什麼？」地方主義人士問弗雷德或瑪麗，他們需要什麼才能擁有自己的家。不同的問題會產生不同的成果。中央政府的人用數據看事情，在地的人看到可以變成數據的東西，還有不能用數據判斷的面向。

第二項差別就是關係。中央政府的權力沒有感情、制式、抽象、規則導向。地方的權力則是有溫度、關係導向、有感情、不規則，以有來有往、信任的歷史為基礎。中央的系統獎勵理性的智慧，當地的系統也需要情感的智慧。

改變發生的方式也不同。中央層級的改變代表，當政策在長期的辯論之後通過，大規模的變化會很快發生，像是歐巴馬健保案或是稅務改革。地方的改變則是比較漸進式，比較緩慢。這是一個傳統的系統，像是一所公立學校，一個雜貨店或是投資基金。有的人打破系統，創造出創意的其他做法，像是特許學校，有機農夫市場，或是集資企劃。就如機會都市發展中心(Center for Opportunity Urbanism)Leo Linbeck所形容，這些新的創意人士「宣布這些升級的機會，讓使用者決定什麼時候可以轉換。」傳統系統與創新者會有對談，前者可以學習和調整。透過新與舊的雙方的對話，改變就會發生。

促成變革的勞務分配有所不同。就如影響力投資者(impact investor )Deborah Frieze在一場2015年的 2015 TEDx talk中所分享，改變是從離席者(Walk Outs)所引領。有些人離開傳統系統，創新提出新的作法。有些是點亮者，這些人分析變革，讓大家看見可以做出的改變。

我想要提出另外兩個社會性的角色。年長者是都市的父母親，因為他們已經有身份地位，所以穩住這座城鎮。年長者支持離席者，給他們空間可以改變舊的系統。還有網絡創業家(Network Entrepreneurs)，他們連結有時候感到孤單、工作過量、人手不足的離席者，幫助離席者建立支持系統，找出可以交流知識與彼此照顧的方式。

當地主義型態的改變，常常看起來像是舊有型態的更新版，這些比過去五十年來的高科技結構更親密，溫暖。當地主義認為全國如此多元的問題，並不會有單一的解決方案，應該有對話，將保守與自由主義的人聚集在一起，主要的想法就是當大家的生活在彼此照顧、面對面的關係中，一起建立自己的社群時是最快樂的。

請在臉書與推特(@NYTopinion)，追蹤紐約時報的社論版面，訂閱Opinion Today訊息。David Brooks於2003年成為Op-Ed專欄作家，他的文章每個星期二、五刊登。他目前是PBS NewsHour、All Things Considered與NBC的Meet the Press評論者，也是一為暢銷書作者。

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTdZSPBRRE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Opportunities for Growing Your Leadership Capacities in 2018

*ToP Programs (Technology of Participation) are facilitation methods of The Institute of Cultural Affairs). Recognized ToP Trainers: Lawrence Philbrook, Richard West, Gail West, Evelyn Philbrook, Shawn Chung, Laura Hsu, Frieda Lin, Mark Pixley, Jorie Wu, Paulina Pei Lin Chu

Public Training Courses, Taipei

Aug 18-19 Facilitating Client Collaboration

Sept 15-16 GFM-2 Consensus Workshop

Oct 13-14 Transformative Action Planning

Nov 17-18 Spirit of Facilitation

Dec 1-2 Participatory Strategic Planning

ICA Asia Pacific Regional Conference (APRC), in Taiwan

Nov 9-12 Community Resilience Dialogues in Tainan, Hualien and Taipei (3 sites)

Nov 13-15 Asia Pacific Regional Meeting, Tainan

Nov 16 Expanding TOP Access and Adaptation in Asia and Greater China, in Taipei

Nov 17-18 Spirit of Facilitation Training, Taipei

For detailed course information and registration call or email the ICA Taiwan icamail@icatw.com