The future of the planet cannot and will not be the simple continuation of present neo-conservative capitalism. That economic system will never deliver the goods of development and welfarism to all of us. Exploitation, domination, marginalization lead some people to resignation and despair, other to adjustment. Others, however, revolt, stand up and resist. All these types of reaction/resistance constitute and are constituted by "culture". The frustration and anger of the jobless and of the hungry will be increasingly corroborated by the loss of confidence by a growing part of mankind in the progress and happyness promised by capitalism and its "development". Immanuel Wallerstein believes that capitalism may collapse, not primarily because it is lacking economic technology to adjust to crisis, but due to a fundamental lack of legitimacy in the eyes of people in both South and North. Some communities resist more successfully than others to the narrow rationality of the "megamachine" and its competitive obsession. Their resistance contain germs of alternatives and seeds of hope for a different future. As a consequence, it is fair to state that we are not witnessing the "End of History" despite the arrogantly ethnocentric prophecy of Prof. Fukuyama (White House adviser in the G. Bush administration).

This so-called "End of History" was to follow the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ensuing universalization of "economic rationality" and "democracy". The prophecy is blatently belied : not only by the many struggles and social movements which continue to change society (and "make history") but also by the multiple forms of reaction resistance and alternative behaviour in the fields of political and economic organization, the latter being the object of this research.

"We can no longer be content with writing only the history of victorious elites (...). We thus need to uncover the history of "the people without history" : the active histories of "primitives", peasantries, laborers, immigrants and besieged minorities" (Open the Social Sciences, A Report of the Gulbenkian Foundation, 1996, dir. I. Wallerstein).

A win-win economy ?

The "Caïn Syndrome" which characterizes the present "win-loose" economy is steeped in an aggressive, exclusively and excessively "male" paradigm of conquest and domination, in a culture of competition, hierarchy, rationalism. It is characterized by a non-participatory mechanistic, Darwinian paradigm. This culture is maybe reaching its climax and might be close to its collapse or to its transformation in the present age of globalization (Pradervand).

In primitive times, men had to secure a livelihood outside the cavern whereas women tended to the household. Joël de Rosnay indicated that these male qualities were necessary to conquer the world since the beginning of Man's history. Yet they are required no more. We now have reached the limit. The whole planet has been conquered. It was turned into our common habitat. The caretaker of the cavern is now at least as important as the conqueror of the outside world. Qualities of "householding" (litteral meaning of Economics !) are now required as much as the capacity to conquer. These are values associated to womanhood : holistic concerns for interdependence, partnership, bonding, harmony, coordination, dialogue, compassion, respect for life, caring ...

We now need a symbiosis of "male" and "female" values inside each one of us and in our social and economic life. Taking care of our home "cavern" is as imporant as mastering the bush outside. Cooperation is as important as competition if we want to survive as a species on a liveable planet. 5.8 billion humans simply cannot go on according the present "win-loose" economy. The issue is not "how to have more" but "how much is enough". Our planet can carry 10 billion citizens, not 10 billion "rugged individualists". The millions of excluded will not keep watching peacefully for ever how the world's resources are consumed by a privileged minority of 20%. In this interdependent planet of ours, the "win-win" paradigm, based on solidarity, is as much a demographical and ecological as an ethical imperative. Hazel Henderson is quite blunt about it : we will all be loosers if everyone wants to be winner. As a sad and frightening matter of fact, the winner will be, in the medium to long term, a looser.

The win-loose attitude destroys the chances of others, jeopardizes the environment and ultimately damages our human fibre, our integrity as human being (Santikaro, Pradervand).

A search for meaning

"What you want others to do for you, do it also for them", this basic tenet quoted from the Gospel (Mat 7, 12) is present in at least eight great religious and ethical systems. One participant quoted evidence to that from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrism ... Also people steeped in secular spirituality (E. Fromm, M. Rosenberg, I. Boszormenyi Nagy, H. Comte-Sponville) agree with that. The human being is made for giving and loving. Surely, humans do not always live up to that. Far from it. Still, facts are here which speak for themselves : some people want change out of ethical considerations. The various attemps to resist this model in North and South and to create alternatives such as those mentioned in this document point to a deeply-felt human urge for something else.

Widespread dissatisfaction with lives led in opulence according to the "win-loose" model bears convincing testimony to the fact that people in the North crave for more. And, in this case, "more" is "better" : a better life. More human. The power-hungry, the "win-loose" maniac, the calculating egotist, is not only an objective threat to nature and to people : he is not a model of joy and happyness either. Peoples' culture looks for deeper meaning.

Re-embed the economy as if people mattered

Karl Polanyi developed from the previous work of Karl Marx his concept of embededness of the economy into local social life. This concept enables one to break away from the mechanistic and ethnocentric view of economics; it allows one to open up to an interdisciplinary and intercultural approach. Since capitalism ripped away economy from other social concerns and regulations, its profit-based logic tends to dominate all aspects of social life. There is a need to re-embed economics into society. This is a political, ethical and environmental necessity. It is also an important key to understanding those societies which are relatively more traditional and less Westernized (less capitalist that is). Thus, culture (the immaterial dimension of life) is a central element.

Beyond materialistic and culturalistic determinism

It may be tragically correct to say that our economic culture may not change fast enough to prevent total collapse. It is also true to state that, even if our culture changes rapidly, adjustment may be painful. In any case, culture is to play a key-role for the required change to come about.

This last conclusion may sound idealistic by putting too much emphasis on such a "soft" issue as culture. It is not. Contributions to this research indicate that there exists, to use Maurice Godelier's words, a constant reciprocal influence between the world of ideas (l'idéel) and the world of matter (le matériel), between culture and modes of production, between values and techniques. Far from being reduced to a superstructure determined by economics and technology, as many simplistic "Marxists" once wrote, culture is part and parcel of social and economic relations. There is a dialectical relationship between culture and so called "hard" facts. Culture organizes life and is influenced by life.

This last conclusion may sound idealistic by putting too much emphasis on such a "soft" issue as culture. It is not. Contributions to this research indicate that there exists, to use Maurice Godelier's words, a constant reciprocal influence between the world of ideas (l'idéel) and the world of matter (le matériel), between culture and modes of production, between values and techniques. Far from being reduced to a superstructure determined by economics and technology, as many simplistic "Marxists" once wrote, culture is part and parcel of social and economic relations. There is a dialectical relationship between culture and so called "hard" facts. Culture organizes life and is influenced by life.

This is a basic tenet within Network Cultures, away from any illusions due to abstract culturalism or to materialistic determinism. The human being moves into a web of social relations and conflicts, of economic structures, of technical innovations and of information. Yet, he is not just a puppet determined by forces beyond him. His ability to interpret the past, to give meaning to the present and to anticipate the future, i.o.w. his culture, can be a powerful source of reaction and resistance.

It is in our culture that we will find the invisible engine of our reaction/resistance to globalization. Culture prompts action and is nurtured by our action. There is dialectical link between action and culture as between material and technological conditions and culture. Culture is like groundwater. It may not be visible but it guarantees our fertility. Its major function, next to self-esteem, selection, solidarity and struggle, is meaning. The meaning we give to life produces practices and organizations. They are the visible concretization of our culture. These actions and organizations (e.g. a coop, a LETS) may be absorbed, manipulated or shattered by capitalism. Yet, if the sense-giving capacity of culture is still alive, hope remains. As long as humans are not submitted into a "culture of silence" (P. Freire), as long as they can stand up as creative, actors able to give meaning to their lives, as long as they can be subjects and not objects of history, hope is alive.

Time for hope beyond optimism ?

Change is certainly ahead of us. Whether it will be for the better rather than for the worse is unclear.

Will enough global awareness arise ? Is the paradigm shift occurring on large and deep enough scale ? Will there be enough social struggle, creativity and solidarity at local levels ?

The present times do not inspire much optimism. But hope, struggle and creativity can achieve profound change. Here lies the civil responsibility of each one of us.

The French philosopher Albert Camus stated that each degradation of peoples' culture would lead to servitude ("Tout ce qui dégrade la culture raccourcit les chemins de la servitude"). Consequently, each effort to search for more meaning to our lives and our social and economic system would lead to more freedom. Not that of markets, but the freedom of people.

Thierry G. Verhelst