Jun 15 2005
The Wellbeing Manifesto
Last night I went to the launch of The Wellbeing Manifesto, the text of which you can find at http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net. I would heartily recommend endorsing it if you agree with it.
Basically, the manifesto is a description of what society could, and perhaps should be like, and has come out of the experience of a few people who have noticed the dissatisfaction with life as it is, and the values and priorities of our society. It is about offering a different story to the one we have at the moment (get educated, make money, buy stuff, die), and in some senses, a parallel story with what we are trying to tell with inspiral. The preamble of the manifesto is as follows:
Australians are three times richer than their parents and grandparents were in the 1950s, but they are no happier. Despite the evidence of a decline in national wellbeing, governments continue to put economic interests first. The obsession with economic growth means other things that could improve our wellbeing are sacrificed.
There is widespread community concern that the values of the market—individualism, selfishness, materialism, competition—are driving out the more desirable values of trust, self-restraint, mutual respect and generosity. Many people feel alienated from the political process; the main parties seem too alike and think of progress only in material terms.
The challenge of our age is to build a new politics that is committed, above all, to improving our wellbeing.
Carmen Lawrence, Tim Costello and Clive Hamilton (co-author of the manifesto with Richard Denniss) spoke about their endorsement of it, and spoke impressively. I’ll give my impressions of the first two.
Carmen Lawrence spoke of her frustration with the political process, and the way it has morphed over the years into something that does not serve the best interests of its constituency, but rather serves its own agenda. At one stage, she even described the two party system in Australia as “ossified” and virtually at breaking point. The time is ripe for change, she said, but requires some strong people with strong convictions to carry that change through.
At one stage, she was questioned by a member of the audience about whether she felt her association with the manifesto would damage its credibility, given her rather checkered political career which (allegedly?) included implementing mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. Her response was both humble and impressive; noting that she had responded to this criticism often over the years, she said that unfortunately she had been overseas at the time that policy was written and implemented, and therefore had no involvement in it. That would have seemed to be a neat sidestep were it not for the fact that she went on to say that on her return from her trip, she had the chance to repeal it, but “lacked the moral courage” to do so. It was one of the greatest regrets of her political career, she said. It seemed quite a courageous thing for a politician to admit her mistake, and say that she was sorry; indeed, not merely a mistake, but a moral failure on her part.
Tim Costello also spoke well. His time was spent largely drawing a parallel between the Christian story and the dominant story of our time: consumerism. His point was that the job of advertisers is to make us feel “sinful” – that we do not measure up to others, that we lack something we should have, that we do not look as good as we ought – and then offer us “salvation” in the form of goods or services. At one point, he described a shopping trip in similar terms to a church experience: entering through the enormous arched entranceway to the sacred space of the shopping centre, having the shop assistant/priest (complete with ceremonial robes/uniforms) offer to assist you with your religious experience, the affirmation of “you look wonderful in that!”, the satistfaction of the transaction/salvation being realized and finally being offered the benediction, “Have a nice day.” His endorsement of the manifesto was a recognition that the dominant story is not one that should continue.
But possibly the best thoughts of the night were from Richard Denniss, a shy, quiet economist and co-author of the manifesto (he spoke as part of the panel during question time). Not only was he uproariously funny (“Thankfully, we’ve solved the problem of the severe shortage of mobile phones amongst 16 year olds, and we’ve almost solved the lack of flat screen televisions in our society…”) but he made a point about hope that changed the whole dynamic of the night. One of the criticisms levelled at the manifesto is that it is too utopian, that it is completely unrealistic. He said that the problem with many progressives that are trying to change society is that they remain mired in what is wrong with the world, and rail against these negative things. What he was trying to offer with the manifesto, he said, was hope: a way forward, without resorting to simply bagging what is.
Again, I recommend checking out the manifesto and endorsing it. It is a vastly superior story than what our society lives now.