viktor frankl: why to believe in others...

if we take man as he is, we make him worse but if we take man for what he should be, we make him capable of becoming what he can be // goethe

traci fenton on organizational democracy...

( worldblu )

the five advantages of a democratic workplace...

in my last article i talked about the 7 trends making businesses more democratic including the internet, expectations of generations X and Y, new business standards in a post-enron age, political transitions, humanity’s search for meaning, corporate social responsibility, and the birth of what i call “lifestyle democracy.” these trends are making democracy in the workplace inevitable, but what about the benefits? can democracy – rather than a traditional top-down model of business – really be more advantageous? here are five reasons why i believe it can:

democratic companies are a talent magnet...
where would you rather work – a stifling, fear-driven workplace that may look great on a resume but makes your life miserable or one where you’re valued and your voice is heard? when given a choice, smart, creative, self-motivated people – the ideal employee – will choose the latter. regardless of pay or prestige, people want to work where they feel appreciated and heard. business owners and executives should look beyond motivational gimmicks and instead use democracy to attract the people needed to propel their businesses forward – and win the talent war in the process.

democratic companies come up with smarter ideas...
every business owner knows the maxim, “innovate or die.” but coming up with ideas and acting on them isn’t enough. you need smart ideas. how to get them? as james surowiecki writes, tap the wisdom of your crowd. chances are the employees developing your products or services, fielding customer service calls or selling to clients have some great insights for your next big idea – if only someone would listen.

democratic companies work fast...
it may seem paradoxical to say that democratic companies know how to work fast but it’s true. sure, the decision-making process, if it involves reaching a consensus, can take time. but the time and attention paid to everyone’s point of view only makes the execution phase faster once the decision is made. typically, top-down decisions leave employees thinking, “why are they doing that? why didn’t they consult me? this will never work.” most company’s best-laid plans fall apart in the execution phase because they didn’t have the democratic buy-in of the employees who would be executing on the decision. when employees have a say and understand the “why” behind a decision the execution is faster, more efficient and devoid of resistance.

democratic companies have happier employees...
the gallup organization recently reported that approximately three-fourths of the US workforce is disengaged at work, costing $300 billion annually. employees report that not being engaged also impacts their emotional and physical health. conversely employees who do feel engaged feel the opposite. a democratic system by definition is an engaging one, contributing to the physical and mental health of employees each day. being engaged, having a say, and being treated as an intelligent human being makes people happy – and creates a happier place to work as well.

democratic companies use democracy to boost the bottom line...
democracy impacts the bottom line because it attracts great talent, keeps turnover and absenteeism low and produces a more innovative workforce that executes on ideas quickly. a workplace with fewer layers of management due to a flatter, more decentralized system means that money can be used to hire great people – rather than manage underperformers. democracy means a leaner, faster, happier and more innovative company – factors which give the bottom line a boost // traci fenton, startupnation.com

ricardo semler on the modern corporation...

almost all businessmen think their employees are involved in the firm and are its greatest asset. almost all employees think they are given too little attention and respect, and cannot say what they really think. how is it possible to reconcile these two positions? the sad truth is employees of modern corporations have little reason to feel satisfied, much less fulfilled. companies do not have the time or the interest to listen to them, and lack the resources or the inclination to train them for advancement. these companies make a series of demands, for which they compensate employees with salaries that are often considered inadequate. moreover, companies tend to be implacable in dismissing workers when they start to age or go through a temporary drop in performance, and send people into retirement earlier than they want, leaving them with the feeling they could have contributed much more had someone just asked. the era of using people as production tools is coming to an end. participation is infinitely more complex to practice than conventional corporate unilateralism, just as democracy is much more cumbersome than dictatorship. but there will be few companies that can afford to ignore either of them// ricardo semler, maverick, p.107

charlie breaks his silence...

the return of history...

in a column called “a crisis of understanding,” robert j. shiller of yale pointed out that the best explanation of the crisis isn’t even a work of economic analysis. it’s a history book — “this time is different” by carmen m. reinhart and kenneth s. rogoff — that is almost entirely devoid of theory. one gets the sense, at least from the outside, that the intellectual energy is no longer with the economists who construct abstract and elaborate models. instead, the field seems to be moving in a humanist direction. many economists are now trying to absorb lessons learned by psychologists, neuroscientists and sociologists. they’re producing books with titles like “animal spirits,” “the irrational economist,” and “identity economics,” about subjects such as how social identities shape economic choices. this amounts to rediscovering the humility of an earlier time. after all, adam smith was a moral philosopher, friedrich von hayek built his philosophy on an awareness of our own ignorance, and john maynard keynes “was not prepared to sacrifice realism to mathematics,” as the biographer robert skidelsky put it. economics is a “moral science,” keynes wrote. it deals with “motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties. one has to be constantly on guard against treating the material as constant and homogenous..." economics achieved coherence as a science by amputating most of human nature. now economists are starting with those parts of emotional life that they can count and model (the activities that make them economists). but once they’re in this terrain, they’ll surely find that the processes that make up the inner life are not amenable to the methodologies of social science. the moral and social yearnings of fully realized human beings are not reducible to universal laws and cannot be studied like physics// david brooks, 03.25.10, new york times

vital ingredient in wall street reform goes missing...

last fall, it was all about the wall: financial bigwigs like former federal reserve chair paul volcker, former citigroup co-CEO john reed, governor of the bank of england, mervyn king, all espoused reestablishing the legal barrier between the derivatives casino that masquerades today as wall street and commercial banks holding insured deposits. it made good sense: the wall goes up in 1933, america becomes the premier financial center for 66 years. the wall comes down in 1999, the financial system collapses exactly 9 years later with the precise characteristics of the massive wall street swindles that occurred in the late 1920s when there was also no wall. but the wall has now gone missing in the current financial reform bill advanced out of the senate banking committee by its chairman, senator christopher dodd. equally noteworthy, the historic 1933 legislation that built the essential wall between flim-flam securities salesmen and aunt tilly’s insured bank account, commonly known as the glass-steagall act, has gone missing itself from the internet. to underscore how extraordinary this is, if you put “glass-steagall act” in the google search box, it brings up 220,000 hits. and, yet, it is next to impossible to find the actual text of the legislation on the internet// pam martens, 03.26.10, counterpunch

giving clubs back to fans...

the labour government is to unveil radical proposals that would give football fans first option to buy their clubs when they were put up for sale and require clubs to hand over a stake of up to 25% to supporters' groups. under the scheme to give fans a stake, supporters' trusts with elected representatives, audited accounts and financial services authority recognition would be responsible for maintaining the link between clubs and their community and ensuring fans are not priced out of the game. the government could, however, face legal challenges from existing owners over the dilution of their shares. it has echoes of the model proposed by the so-called red knights attempting to buy manchester united. wealthy fans will contribute 74.9% of the overall purchase price, but supporters will hold a "golden share" of just over 25%, giving them a blocking stake on any change of ownership and an influential boardroom voice. legal advice is being sought on the idea of a change of ownership at a club triggering a mandatory window for fans to take the opportunity to shape the ownership structure and buy the club at a price set by an external, independent auditor. under the proposals, fans would be free to set up their co-operative style model, shareholding trust or other structure that enabled them to have a say in the club. while the government will reiterate that it has no desire to regulate football directly, the prime minister believes the democratisation of football club ownership taps into wider themes about the "mutualisation" of public services and the need for regulatory reform// owen gibson, 03.28.10, guardian

the spanish anarchists...

chomsky on anarchism and strategy...

very substantial social changes (are) in order, and anarchists ought to be thinking about it. thinking about it doesn't just mean i'd like to have a free and just society; that's not thinking about it. we have to make a distinction if we want to be effective. that's the question: if we want to be effective, we have to make a distinction between what you might call proposals and advocacy. i mean, you can propose that everybody ought to live in peace, love each other, we shouldn't have any hierarchy, everyone should cooperate, and so on. okay? it's a nice proposal, okay for an academic seminar somewhere. advocacy requires more than just proposal. it means setting up your goals (proposal), but also sketching out a path from here to there -- that's advocacy. and the path from here to there almost invariably requires small steps. it requires recognition of social and economic reality as it exists, and ideas about how to build the institutions of the future within the existing society, to quote bakunin, but also to modify the existing society. that means steps have to be taken that accommodate reality, that don't deny it's existence ("since i don't like it, i'm not going to accommodate it"). these are the only ways to be effective// noam chomsky, 03.12.10, reddit blog

why greater equality makes societies stronger...

it is well established that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. now a groundbreaking book, based on thirty years’ research, takes an important step past this idea. the spirit level shows that there is one common factor that links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their members. not wealth; not resources; not culture, climate, diet, or system of government. furthermore, more-unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them—the well-off as well as the poor. the remarkable data assembled in the spirit level reveals striking differences, not only among the nations of the first world but even within america’s fifty states. almost every modern social problem—ill-health, violence, lack of community life, teen pregnancy, mental illness—is more likely to occur in a less-equal society. this is why america, by most measures the richest country on earth, has per capita shorter average lifespan, more cases of mental illness, more obesity, and more of its citizens in prison than any other developed nation. wilkinson and pickett lay bare the contradiction between material success and social failure in today’s world, but they do not simply provide a diagnosis of our woes. they offer readers a way toward a new political outlook, shifting from self-interested consumerism to a friendlier, more sustainable society. the spirit level is pioneering in its research, powerful in its revelations, and inspiring in its conclusion: armed with this new understanding of why communities prosper, we have the tools to revitalize our politics and help all our fellow citizens, from the bottom of the ladder to the top//

i will fight for what i believe in until i drop dead... and that's what keeps you alive // barbara castle

...does activism make you happy?

marching in the drizzle against wars in far-off countries, writing letters protesting the government's latest reactionary policy, sitting through interminable meetings that keep sprouting any other business. it may be noble, but political activism is hardly a barrel of laughs. and yet it makes you happier. so find two university psychologists in new research that looks for the first time at the link between political activity and wellbeing. malte klar and tim kasser started by interviewing two sets of around 350 college students, both about their degree of political engagement and their levels of happiness and optimism. both times, they found that those most inclined to go on a demo were also the cheeriest. so there's a link – but can politics actually make a person happier? in the third study, the academics took a bunch of students and divided them up into groups. the first were encouraged to write to the management of the college cafeteria asking for tastier food. the next lot wrote asking the cafe to source local or fairtrade products. they were then tested on their wellbeing, and the group who had involved themselves in the political debate were far and away the strongest on the "vitality" scale: they felt more alive and enriched than those who merely complained about the menu. there are many fascinating aspects to this . first, the activist-students didn't necessarily care about food ethics, but just taking action made them feel better. second, sending a memo is hardly the most engaging political action – and yet it had a big impact on those taking it. third, the study flies in the face of the popular wisdom that happiness resides in creature comforts and relative affluence. perhaps activism gives people a sense of purpose, or of agency or just a chance to hang out with other people. most likely it does all of the above// aditya chakrabortty, 03.02.10, guardian

the robin hood tax...

zero point of systemic collapse...

we will not, especially in the united states, avoid our götterdämmerung. obama, like canada’s prime minister stephen harper and the other heads of the industrialized nations, has proven as craven a tool of the corporate state as george w. bush. our democratic system has been transformed into what the political philosopher sheldon wolin labels inverted totalitarianism. inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. it finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. it purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, a free press, parliamentary systems and constitutions while manipulating and corrupting internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens but are ruled by armies of corporate lobbyists in washington, ottawa or other state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. a corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. mass culture, owned and disseminated by corporations, diverts us with trivia, spectacles and celebrity gossip. in classical totalitarian regimes, such as nazi fascism or soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” wolin writes. “economics dominates politics – and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness”// chris hedges, 02.08.10, adbusters

americaspeaks...

...the best company in britain to work for?

in the depths of what everyone keeps telling us is the deepest financial and economic crisis since the second world war, john lewis plainly has not done badly (operating profit up 20%, if you didn't read the business pages last week). that's partly because it stacks its shelves with goods of a certain quality, and sells them to a certain kind of customer with a certain standard of service... it also has something to do with the reason everyone was cheering so loudly last thursday: unlike other high-street names (unlike most companies, in fact), john lewis is owned by a trust on behalf of its employees, each of whom has a say in its running and a share in its profits. this is britain's largest and most venerable example of worker co-ownership. its avowed purpose is not the making of shedloads of short-term profit to placate a bunch of remote and greedy shareholders, but "the happiness of all its members, through their worthwhile and satisfying employment in a successful business" (that's from the partnership's constitution. it bears re-reading). and at a time when the limits of the more traditional capitalist model of shareholder ownership stand cruelly exposed, john lewis' ongoing success is increasingly prompting all three main political parties to point to it as a possible template – for other companies, for schools, hospitals, even local councils// jon henley, 03.16.10, guardian

innovations in public participation...

participedia...

participedia is a tool for democrats. it aims to create and gather public knowledge to deepen democracy. based on a wiki platform, its main content consists of user-generated articles which describe and assess participatory governance throughout the world. for instance, there will be articles on the british columbia citizens’ assembly of 2004, consensus conferences in denmark, participatory budgeting in porto alegre and other cities, local school council governance in chicago, municipal evaluation meetings in china, the panchayati raj reforms in india, and the people’s campaign for democratic decentralization (under the panchayati raj reforms) in kerala, india. in addition, there will be articles on participatory methods, such as deliberative polling, citizens' assemblies, and participatory budgeting, as well as articles about the organizations that sponsor, implement, and study participatory governance. over time, we hope participedia will garner hundreds and perhaps thousands of such articles//

cameron on the next age of gov...

when the people speak...

all over the world, democratic reforms have brought power to the people, but under conditions where the people have little opportunity to think about the power that they exercise. in this book, james fishkin combines a new theory of democracy with actual practice and shows how an idea that harks back to ancient athens can be used to revive our modern democracies. the book outlines deliberative democracy projects conducted by the author with various collaborators in the united states, china, britain, denmark, australia, italy, bulgaria, northern ireland, and in the entire european union. these projects have resulted in the massive expansion of wind power in texas, the building of sewage treatment plants in china, and greater mutual understanding between catholics and protestants in northern ireland. the book is accompanied by a DVD of "europe in one room" by emmy award-winning documentary makers paladin invision. the film recounts one of the most challenging deliberative democracy efforts with a scientific sample from 27 countries speaking 21 languages//

europe in one room...

top economist predicts end of global economy...

jeff rubin is not an oil alarmist—he doesn’t think that the world’s supply of crude will run out and cause resource wars and food shortages of apocalyptic proportions. in fact, he doesn’t even think the world’s supply of crude is running out at all. rubin made this clear as he addressed the business of climate change conference in toronto last september, opening his keynote address with the statement, “the world’s not running out of oil.” however, after milking the pause for a second or two, rubin went on: “but it has already run out of oil it can afford to burn.” in short, rubin emphatically believes that two intensifying and antagonistic trends will cause a blast-off of crude oil prices in the next 15 months: exponentially-increasing demand for oil tied to the global economy and the ever-accelerating depletion of conventional (cheap) oil reserves. instead of calling for government action to avert the crisis-causing apex of these two trends, rubin thinks the crisis will be addressed by local and individual action driven by market forces. “the prices needed to get unconventional oil out of the ground are the same prices that will get you off the road,” he explained. he elaborated by predicting that stratospheric oil prices would force consumers and producers alike to change behaviours that would eventually lead to a breakdown of the global economy and a return to local economies// josh garrett, 02.01.10, heatingoil.com

policy interventions needed "from cradle to grave" to counter entrenched inequalities...

the independent national equality panel, chaired by LSE's professor john hills, argues that policy interventions are needed at each life cycle stage to counter the way economic inequalities are reinforced over people's lives and often on to the next generation. the panel found that deep-seated and systematic differences remain between social groups across all of the dimensions the panel examines, although some of the widest gaps have narrowed in the last decade. professor hills said: "most people and nearly all political parties subscribe to the ideal of 'equality of opportunity'. but advantage and disadvantage reinforce themselves over the life cycle. it is hard to argue that the large and systematic differences in outcomes which we document result from personal choices made against a background of equality of opportunity, however that is defined." the report and a summary are available here//

howard zinn...

( 1922 - 2010 )

dissent is the highest form of patriotism// howard zinn

move your money...

...gated communities = safer communities?

you know those "gated communities?" the usually upmarket, walled-off residential developments that offer their own amenities and, sometimes, security staff? well, one assumed advantage of these places is that they're safer than the outside world. but according to an interesting post over at the NRDC, that might not be the case. subdivisions secured by gates intended to exclude outsiders may not be safer than those that are fully public. this is because they can lack the social cohesion and interaction with the larger community that for millennia have served as deterrents to crime and other antisocial behavior. according to the post, the police chief in charlotte, north carolina compared crime in gated communities to crime in similar ungated neighborhoods and found no appreciable difference. and to the extent that gated communities are artificial collections of people without real, longstanding relationships between neighbors, they may be more vulnerable to crime because people aren't looking out for each other. to make things worse, being fenced in also increases one's subjective feeling of vulnerability. it doesn't look like there's a proper study behind this. gated communities probably aren't much less safe than other communities, just less safe than the residents of gated communities think they are. and clearly some of the priciest gated communities are so fortress-like that are very secure. but what's most interesting here is that they tend to be sort of anti-social places and that has real effects on social capital// andrew price, 01.14.10, good

the hidden cost of war...

fighting corporate money in politics...

anticipating a supreme court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, rep. alan grayson (d-fla.) introduced five bills on wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash. "we are facing a potential threat to our democracy," grayson said in an interview with the huffington post. "unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. it would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable." at issue in the supreme court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns// arthur delaney, 01.14.10, huffington post

on behalf of haiti, i say thank-you, america...

ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow haiti's people to move "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" (to borrow former president jean-bertrand aristide's phrase) has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. today, however, things are different. “i want to speak directly to the people of haiti,” president obama said. he paused for a moment. “you will not be forsaken, you will not be forgotten,” he said. “in this, your hour of greatest need, america stands with you.” to this i say, thanks america, for picking up haiti after so swiftly and repeatedly kicking it down. and might i add, when's your next kick?

as peter hallward has pointed out: along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of haiti's people and public institutions. if we are serious about helping we need to stop trying to control haiti's government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy. and then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done//

to progress in any department of practical life we must innovate and we must cooperate// roberto unger

democracy unbound...

how should modern democracies be governed? should the public’s business be conducted largely by elected representatives and professional administrators? or, should citizens participate much more in making laws and policies and implementing them? should the machinery of democracy simply tally the preferences and interests of citizens, or should it facilitate deliberations that inform and enlarge their views? dogmatic answers—for example that representative government is the only realistic form of modern government or that the only real democracy is a participatory one—now common in professional democratic theory and public discourse thwart the quest for practices that would better vindicate our fundamental democratic values. these dogmas, furthermore, prevent us from solving—sometimes even from recognizing—major political dilemmas of our time. maintaining an open disposition toward a wide range of political practices can help citizens and leaders address those problems and deepen our democracy at the same time. citizens’ welfare and the health of their democracies would be better served by a pragmatic public philosophy in which a wide range of political institutions are justified by their capacity to solve social problems in ways that secure individuals’ welfare and autonomy. my current book project, democracy unbound develops that pragmatic conception of democracy. pragmatic democracy begins with the basic presumption that governments are democratic insofar as they protect citizens’ interests effectively, treat them as equals, and provide opportunities for them to participate in public decision-making and action. unlike most theories of democracy, however, pragmatic democracy does not prescribe a specific political institutions such as representation or deliberation to achieve these goals. instead, it recognizes that no single set of institutions and political practices best advances these ends for all issues and circumstances. some issues are appropriately addressed by experts, while others call for broad and direct citizen engagement. rather than offering a single blueprint, democracy unbound provides conceptual and practical tools of democratic theory and institutional design to help political scientists, policy makers, and citizen activists understand the feasible and desirable range of decision-making processes// archon fung

changecamp...

a changecamp event is a creative face-to-face gathering that is citizen-led, non-partisan and social web enabled. changecamps bring together citizen change agents to answer questions like, "how can we work together to create our desired future?" changecamp addresses the demand for a renewed relationship among citizens and between citizens and our civic institutions. it seeks to create connections between people and their civic passions by using new tools of communication. the changecamp community is open to all. it hopes to ignite a self-organizing movement for positive change in cities, towns and neighbourhoods across canada//

a new vision for community media...

community television is a throwback to a time when cable technology was new and the web was not yet born. it allowed anyone to create a program that could be seen on cable. community television was the youtube of its day; but things have changed. downloading and streaming have precipitated a complicated restructuring of the television industry, brought on in part by new viewing habits. traditional TV now seems to be on the wane. but there are some things that are harder for the internet to replace. most television takes more than one person to make. the internet cannot replace the studio space, hands-on training and possibilities for in-person collaboration and mentorship that community television allowed for. and it won't replace the sense of place provided by a community production studio; a space where people can gather, work, learn and create together. we are at a critical moment when traditional media ownership is more concentrated than ever, and yet we have perhaps the most participatory medium in history at our fingertips. as such, citizens need access to media literacy, knowledge and media production skills more than ever before. and community media centres--modeled on the idea of recreation centres and local libraries--may be a crucial piece of the digital divide puzzle// steve anderson & michael lithgow, 10.05.09, rabble

the work around...

supervisors around the country are lying, cheating, and stealing from their employers to give workers a fair shake. one supervisor at an east coast restaurant chain, profiled by the american prospect, has created two time sheet systems: one real, and one fake that she reports to her employer. this allows workers to take time off and tend to their families, breaking company rules, and not get fired. “i couldn’t go along with their rules,” the supervisor told the american prospect. “it was ridiculous, like i’m going to tell this mother with a 4-year-old, ‘no, you can’t leave to pick him up.’” the idea harkens back to a quote by paul newman in the film cool hand luke: “calling it your job don’t make it right”// bennett gordon, 01.06.10, utne reader

another world is possible...

it is a commonplace of serious historical research worldwide that the unsung actions of people where they live and work are central to large-order change. regulatory commissions for railroads and other industries, minimum-wage laws, food- and drug-safety laws, the estate tax, the eight-hour workday, social security and related forms of public insurance, child labor laws, laws to increase factory safety, workers' compensation, the preservation of national parks and other conservation measures, and many, many other national policies at the heart of modern american reality built upon precedents first developed and refined by local citizen effort. is there anything important and potentially system-changing going on at the grassroots today? yes–but you have to look beyond conventional media reporting, and even beyond the traditional new deal and progressive policy paradigms. one of the most important trends involves an array of new economic institutions that transform the ownership of wealth in ways that benefit "small publics," groups of citizens whose efforts feed into the well-being of the community as a whole. here are a few little-known facts: more people are now involved in some 11,500 companies wholly or substantially owned by employees than are members of unions in the private sector. there are more than 4,000 nonprofit community development corporations that build housing and create jobs in cities across the nation. both democratic and republican city officials have begun to establish municipally owned public companies to make money for their communities (and often to solve environmental problems). numerous quasi-public land trusts that stabilize housing prices now exist. cities and states regularly invest in job-creating efforts, often using large-scale public pension assets. in alaska, the state's permanent fund invests oil revenues and provides each citizen with dividends. in alabama, the public employee retirement system finances a broad range of job-stabilizing and moneymaking industries, including many employee-owned businesses. numerous other local and state activist efforts to shift the way wealth accumulates and moves around are under way, from "living wage" campaigns to wal-mart challenges and beyond. not surprisingly, in case after case, ordinary citizens have taken the lead in developing these new strategies// gar alperovitz, mother jones

love in a cemetery...

traditionally cultural institutions have often excluded ongoing dialogue about social issues outside of the art world. artist, allan kaprow wrote, “life in a museum is like making love in a cemetery,” metaphorically equating a museum with a cemetery— a dead and sterile space. kaprow’s quote motivated multiple collaborative community based projects currently being executed by the first year public practice MFA graduate students at OTIS college of art and design. in 2010 the graduate students in collaboration with LACMA lab’s founding director, bob sain; artist, andrea bowers; art administrator, pauline kamiyama and the 18th street art center will develop an exhibition as a laboratory. the social/political obligations of cultural organizations to their respective communities will be investigated through partnerships with several community based organizations. the project’s ethic of action and engagement will lead to an artistic manifestation, and the participating public practice artists hope the communities involved will realize positive outcomes that will outlast the exhibition. this exhibition will be presented at the 18th street art center gallery from january 23rd to march 26th 2010//

there is a mass of sense lying in a dormant state which good government should quietly harness// thomas paine