Youth Return the Future to Dubrovnik
Sohail Inayatullah
Professor, Tamkang University, Sunshine Coast
University, Queensland University of Technology. www.metafuture.org
“The return of the Goddess in Dalmatia”
“Dubrovnik avoiding mcdonaldization, and creating a new
vision and practice of globalization”
“Neo-humanistic education transforming Balkan pedagogy”
These were some of the memes that were spread at the
New Wave: Vision of the youth conference held in Dubrovnik from August 27th
to September 2 (www.newwavevision.org). The meeting was organized by the
young people of Dubrovnik, in cooperation with dozens of nongovernmental
organizations from Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Greece (such as Centre
for Neohumanistic Studies, Croatia; PCAP International or Prevention of
Cruelty to Plans and Animals; Mali Korak or Centre for Culture of Peace and
Nonviolence; Ziva Semlja, Living Earth; CCI, Centre for Civil Initiatives;
Fractal Belgrade; and, Amurt Hellas) and with sponsorship from Friendly
Favors, Gaia Trust, British Council Croatia and a host of Croatian
Ministries). I mention some of these since while a clear vision emerged,
this was an eclectic affair. That said, this was very much about education
for the future, not an academic course, but a call to and for future
generations.
But the future was not a space in forward time. Dr
Constance Piesinger opened the conference by arguing that the Balkans were
once a site of Goddess culture. This was a peaceful and cooperative local
culture. Eventually, Indo-european tribes destroyed it, beginning the long
period of Patriarchy. However, Adrian Predraga Kezele spoke that the
Goddess can return (from his book, the Return of the Goddess), and will
return. This is the reawakening of spiritual culture in the Balkan region,
moving away from nationalist wars toward a more cooperative localized
culture. But it was through Dr. Ivana Milojevic that the spiral took the
full turn. She argued that since it did exist once – goddess culture – it
can exist again. Our visions of the future pull us not only in our dreams
but in our day to day realities. We are always living a vision of the
future. We should live one that makes sense to us, politically, economically
and culturally.
Workshops by Ross Jackson and Hildur Jackson filled in
the details – how would world trade need to be reorganized, how can the many
sprouting eco-villages be coordinated? Marcus Bussey gave tips to teachers
on how alternative futures generally and neo-humanistic futures particularly
can be lived in the tough world of the classroom. I took a macroview,
focusing on long term historical trends and how they may lead us to a
Goddess culture. I asked participants to design the economic and social
institutions that could make their vision real. As well, I argued, the
future, far from being merely in predictive space, could be seen as a
resource, as a facility that could be used for education, capacity
development, strategy, memetic change, and indeed even microvita change.
Other workshops focused on complementary currencies,
necessary for the required global-local politics (Serbio Lub) and multiple
intelligences (Virginia Deerani). Dr. Shun-Jie Ji from the Tamkang
University Futures Program developed a role-playing workshop on nuclear and
power and future generations in Taiwan, linking sustainable development to
environmental protection. Christiin Franceschini reported on his Yoga in
schools program in Italy and how this was transforming health practice and
health futures.
What then was the new wave vision that emerged from
young people at the meeting?
1.
Return of Goddess culture
2.
Spiritual practice as central to the future
3.
Linking eco-villages throughout the world
4.
Embedding digital technologies in green activities
5.
Noiseless cars
6.
Global-Local politics
7.
Ensuring that Dubrovnik not become swamped with pseudo-culture but
rather it keep alive its own version of globalized culture (trading,
diplomacy, for example).
8.
Community taking care and raising children
9.
Leaders with clarity
This new wave was a challenge to four old waves –
patriarchy, nationalism, capitalism and materialism.
Of course, any time a new vision begins to emerge there
are issues. Some were optimistic, believing that an alternative future could
be created. Others, said this was impossible: “look at our history of war,
look at the recent past, and at nationalism still present in the region.”
Others pointed out that the politics of power - patriarchy, economic
self-interest, bureaucratized schools, religious dogma – make it almost
impossible for a new future to emerge.
But as Milojevic argued on the first day, a new vision
gives the possibility of a new actualized future. Without a new vision, the
future would remain bounded by current politics.
And it was this new vision that most conference
participants desired. What was perhaps unique was that traditional
dichotomies where not reinforced. Participants saw technology and nature;
women and men; globalization and localization; spirituality and the
empirical world as not necessarily in conflict but requiring integration.
They did not want an either/or world, nor did they see themselves as such.
This was best illustrated by ensuring that theatre,
music and dance were all integrated into the program. Indeed, the meeting
was not only for the future but in the future. Even the daily diet was
vegetarian, approximating the peaceful vision desired (non-killing cultures
as Glen Paige writes). Practical workshops as well concluded the meeting.
One focused on becoming a leader and the other on becoming a new wave
teacher.
For me personally, returning to Dubrovnik after 13
years was a stunning experience. I had gone there in 1990 at the invitation
of Wendy Schultz who had organized a world futures studies federation
course. At that time, all the good and bad hallmarks of a socialist state
were there. Now, this was Europe but without the arrogance. This was
traditional culture nestled in one of the most beautiful spots in the world.
Of course, there had been problems. The war in the early 1990s had not been
kind to the city. Hoewever, unesco had helped rebuild the city. Yet, drunk
youth still stoned cars with Serbian license plates. Pensioners commented
that everything in Dubrovnik had been sold to foreigners. Prices kept on
going up. Things were much better before.
It was the realization that Dubrovnik was at a
bifurcation point that was the prime energy of the Conference (along with
individual change agents such as Didi Ananda Rama). Would Dubrovnik continue
its strategy of mass tourism and thus become one big summer traffic jam? Or
could green spaces, recycling, and a new type of tourism be created? Or
should Dubrovnik begin to think about local and global city solutions, even
imagining retuning to pre-nation-state days, that is, as a city-state? How
best should digital technology be used in governance and in traffic
management? These and other questions were not only explored in the
conference but as well later in a special seminar at the American College of
Management. At this seminar, I presented basic futures concepts (alternative
futures, layered epistemologies, anticipating the future; action learning
design and macrohistory) to over 75 students and faculty and worked with
them to develop alternative futures of the city. They were clear that if
they did nothing then mass tourism and the loss of history and future would
result. They knew they needed to use technology, green thinking, and
foresight to create a different future for their beloved city.
The students are now working on finding ways to ensure
that there is a yearly new wave event in Dubrovnik, not only exploring
alternative futures, but in making their preferred vision of the future more
real.
While Dubrovnik was the focus, students from other
parts of the former Yugoslavia left with their own projects. Students from
Novi Sad, for example, are working on starting a futures course there.
However, this course intends to be far more focused on methodology, and less
on visions. The failure of the future in Serbia, the despair of having
future after future evaporate requires an approach that acknowledges the
sorrows of the past and then moves incrementally to a better future (for
example, less nationalistic, financial dignity, keeping the many successes
of socialism while adopting the energy and openness of Europe). Visions can
become nightmares, as Ashis Nandy reminds us.
Many pathways were opened in Dubrovnik. Some
historical, some totally new, and some a mixture of old and new. I am sure
the participants feel that Gaia was pleased. I went inspired by the hard
work and imagination of the young people of the former Yugoslavia.
