The basics of social sustainability begin at the level of survival, the foundation of existence, and the hope of tomorrow.
The Durations of Existence —
Survival
presents us with the immediate appreciation of life now and the threat of death within this day or the next.
Existence
presents us with the necessity of assuring our survival over a period of time with death still being a constant reminder in our daily activities.
Maintenance
presents us with the necessity of assuring our existence is maintained into an indefinite future. And this is the place where most people and their communities and societies exist — in an indefinite future.
Stability
As a society moves toward social sustainability it has begun the process of assuring it has a definite, peaceful, and stable future.
The Durations of Sustaining —
Sustain: To lengthen or extend in duration. This also implies a continuation of what exists already that may not be sustainable.
Sustainable: Capable of being sustained in the long term.
Sustainability: The ability to sustain.
Social Sustainability: The ability of a society to be self-sustaining indefinitely…, for 5 years, 50 years, 250 years, 500 year and more because of the intention for its existence and the design of its functions.
The progression from a survival state of existence to social stability is as wide as it is from social stability to social sustainability. What is involved is a movement away from material survival where life or death is a constant reminder, to where life is not only assured, but a high quality of life is also assured. This is also the movement from a “quantity-object” way of life and standard of living to a “quality-value” state of life where a very good quality of life for everyone is a paramount concern.
As the table below illustrates, when we discern the two major components that comprise the broad concept of sustainability their differences become very clear. They are as different as 2 million tons of iron ore are from 2 million people who are equally enjoying a good quality of life that provides them with the means to explore their innate potential as anyone else.
Two Types of Sustainability —
Sustainability |
|
| Material Sustainability | Social Sustainability |
| < Quantity - Object Based > | < Quality - Value Based > |
| Resources: |
Resources: |
| Material Environment — Natural Resources are valued as material assets. |
Social Environment — Individuals are valued as social assets. |
| Sustained by: Increasing Qty Available, Decreasing Usage, Reusing, Recycling and Re-purposing. |
Sustained by: * A symbiotic relationship between individuals and society. Society improves the quality of the individual’s capability … … to participate effectively in society, which increases their social value to society. * Individuals then become “social assets” whose innate capabilities can be nurtured and developed. |
Sustainability examined. “Sustainability” as a word is in vogue in almost every circle of discussion from board rooms to classrooms, to cocktail parties and espresso bars. Both material sustainability and social sustainability are necessary to support sustainable societies, cultures, and their populations. With the value system of social sustainability, there is no conflict between them. What has not been developed in the discussion of social planning are the values that have supported our species also provide a common understanding of the needs of social systems from families to national societies.
Quantity and Quality —
The discerning differences between material and social sustainability are quantity-object and quality-value. The material environment of the world provides us with a very obvious quantity-object orientation to all that exists around us. The social environment does NOT provide an obvious quality-value orientation of us as individuals or members of the social environment, until we begin to examine what makes life meaningful to us. The values that are innate to our species move us to rebel against being treated as quantity-objects.
Is peace achievable? Is family comfort and stability achievable? Is community stability and cooperation achievable? Are any of those states of social balance achievable without understanding the quality-value orientation that is innate to our species? No, they are not. Think again about the social and political evolution of democratic societies. Is it possible for the political processes of a democratic society to evolve without our understanding and fully appreciating of the quality-value nature of our species? No, it cannot.
Political regimes that treat people as quantity-objects have always been hated, while political regimes that treat people as having quality-value are respected and appreciated. Designing self-sustaining democratic societies must make these two orientations clearly distinct. In a society that is already democratic, citizens and citizen interest groups need to take the next step to discern where the policies of their governments lie between the poles of quantity-object and quality-value.
Few of us have ever thought of ourselves as being valued for the quality of our participation in our community or society. It is not something we have been taught. Our cultural roots have identified us as “quantity-objects.” In the culture of the United States there is a great emphasis on the quantities of our lives but little emphasis on the quality of our lives and living. Why?
If we examine the roots of our United States culture, we can put our finger on the document that told us that we are “quantity-objects” rather than individuals having “quality-value.” That orientation comes from the most famous sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
For us to raise the social evolution of our societies to the plateau of social stability with the potential of becoming self-sustaining, we must turn our thinking away from seeing each other as just another quantity of one, equal to every other person as a quantity of one. We have blindly accepted this for 241 years, yet each of us knows that our qualities make the difference in all aspects of our lives. It is similar to viewing the world with one eye, where with two eyes we see stereoscopically. Quantity and quality offer us a far more balanced view of each other and ourselves in relationships with others, and with our governments.
The opposite of being a “quantity-object” is an individual who has “quality-value.” Quality-value is not such an odd concept to accept. We unconsciously use this every day in the sports and business relationships we form. Consider the simple example of two tug-of-war teams. We know that for the tug-of-war to be fair we must have the same quantity-object (number) of members in the team. We also realize that having members with more “quality-value” by being heavier, stronger, and better trained in the skills of tug-of-war make all the difference in winning or losing. Isn’t it time we thought of ourselves, individually, in our communities and our democratic processes in the same way? When we do, we will begin to see that equality is a necessary choice to make decisions to increase the social value of people in our societies by improving the qualities of their participation. On a larger scale, social sustainability becomes a matter of conscious choice, not of chance by trial and error. In an evolving democratic society, that choice begins by only creating options that improve the quality of life for everyone, equally.
What has been missing is a system of values that can be used to discern the gradient between the poles of “quantity-object” and “quality-value” of anything social in nature. What is provided in Chapter 6 is a simple-to-use mechanism for citizens and citizen groups to validate or invalidate existing statutes, social policies, and organizational processes, and to design socially sustainable policies and processes as supporting the social sustainability of families, communities, and their societies.