How often do we hear that people just don't care? How many times have you been told that real, substantial change isn't possible because most people are too selfish, too stupid or too lazy to try to make a difference in their community? I propose to you today that apathy as we think we know it doesn't actually exist; but rather, that people do care, but that we live in a world that actively discourages engagement by constantly putting obstacles and barriers in our way.
Kui sageli me kuuleme, et inimesed ei hooli? Kui sageli olete kuulnud, et olulised muutused pole võimalikud, sest inimesed on liiga enesekesksed, liiga rumalad või liiga laisad, et muuta oma kogukonda? Ma väidan, et seda, mida me ükskõiksuseks peame, ei ole tegelikult olemas ja et inimesed tõesti hoolivad, aga me elame maailmas, mis tõrjub osalust seades meie teele mitmeid takistusi.
I'll give you some examples of what I mean. Let's start with city hall. You ever see one of these before? This is a newspaper ad. It's a notice of a zoning application change for a new office building so the neighborhood knows what's happening. As you can see, it's impossible to read. You need to get halfway down to even find out which address they're talking about, and then further down, in tiny 10-point font, to find out how to actually get involved. Imagine if the private sector advertised in the same way -- if Nike wanted to sell a pair of shoes --
Toon selle kohta mõned näited. Alustame omavalitsusest. Olete seda näinud? See on ajalehekuulutus. Teatis uue büroohoone detailplaneeringu muutmise taotluse kohta, et inimesed teaksid, mis nende naabruses toimub. Nagu näete, on seda võimatu lugeda. Te peate pool kuulutust läbi lugema, et saada teada, mis aadressist jutt käib, ja veelgi kaugemal on imeväikeses kirjas öeldud, kuidas arvamust avaldada. Kujutage ette, kui ärisektor reklaamiks end samamoodi - kui Nike sooviks müüa paari jalanõusid
(Laughter)
ja paneks ajalehte sellise kuulutuse ...
And put an ad in the paper like that.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Now, that would never happen. You'll never see an ad like that, because Nike actually wants you to buy their shoes, whereas the city of Toronto clearly doesn't want you involved with the planning process, otherwise their ads would look something like this, with all the information laid out clearly. As long as the city's putting out notices like this to try to get people engaged, then of course people aren't going to be engaged. But that's not apathy; that's intentional exclusion.
Seda ei juhtuks ju kunagi. Te ei näe kunagi sellist reklaami, sest Nike soovib, et te neid jalanõusid tõepoolest ostaksite. Aga Toronto linn ilmselgelt ei soovi, et te planeerimises osaleksite, vastasel juhul näeksid nende kuulutused välja sellised - kus kogu informatsioon on selgelt välja toodud. Niikaua, kuni omavalitsus avaldab selliseid kuulutusi, et püüda inimesi kaasata, ei tule sellest loomulikult midagi välja. Aga see pole ükskõiksus, vaid teadlik välistamine.
Public space.
Avalik ruum.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
The manner in which we mistreat our public spaces is a huge obstacle towards any type of progressive political change, because we've essentially put a price tag on freedom of expression. Whoever has the most money gets the loudest voice, dominating the visual and mental environment. The problem with this model is there are some amazing messages that need to be said, that aren't profitable to say. So you're never going to see them on a billboard.
See, kuidas me avalikku ruumi kuritarvitame, on tohutu takistus mistahes progressiivse poliitilise muutuse teel. Sisuliselt oleme pannud sõnavabadusele hinnasildi. See, kellel on rohkem raha, saab kõvemat häält teha, domineerides nii visuaalses kui ka vaimses keskkonnas. Antud mudeli puhul on probleemiks see, et on äärmiselt vajalikke sõnumeid mida ei ole tulus välja öelda. Seetõttu ei näe me neid kunagi reklaamtahvlitel.
The media plays an important role in developing our relationship with political change, mainly by ignoring politics and focusing on celebrities and scandals, but even when they do talk about important political issues, they do it in a way that I feel discourages engagement. I'll give you an example. The "Now" magazine from last week: progressive, downtown weekly in Toronto. This is the cover story. It's an article about a theater performance, and it starts with basic information about where it is, in case you actually want to go and see it after you've read the article -- where, the time, the website. Same with this -- it's a movie review. An art review. A book review -- where the reading is in case you want to go. A restaurant -- you might not want to just read about it, maybe you want to go there. So they tell you where it is, the prices, the address, the phone number, etc.
Meedia mängib olulist rolli selles, kuidas areneb meie suhe poliitilistesse muutustesse, peamiselt eirates poliitikat ning keskendudes kuulsustele ja skandaalidele. Ja isegi kui räägitakse poliitiliselt olulistest teemadest, tehakse seda ikkagi osalust pärssival viisil. See on ajakirja Now eelmise nädala number - progressiivne nädalaleht Torontost. Siin on kaanelugu. See on artikkel ühest teatrietendusest. See algab infoga, kus etendus toimub, juhul kui te soovite seda pärast artikli lugemist näha - koht, aeg, kodulehekülg. Sarnased näited - filmitutvustus, kunstikriitika, raamatuarvustus - kus toimub avalik lugemine, kui soovite osaleda. Restoran - ehk soovite lisaks lugemisele ka restorani külastada. Niisiis tuuakse ära asukoht, hinnad, aadress, telefoninumber jne.
Then you get to their political articles. Here's a great article about an important election race that's happening. It talks about the candidates, written very well, but no information, no follow-up, no websites for the campaigns, no information about when the debates are, where the campaign offices are. Here's another good article, about a new campaign opposing privatization of transit, without any contact information for the campaign. The message seems to be that the readers are most likely to want to eat, maybe read a book, maybe see a movie, but not be engaged in their community. You might think this is a small thing, but I think it's important, because it sets a tone and it reinforces the dangerous idea that politics is a spectator sport.
Nüüd vaadakem poliitilisi artikleid. See on põhjalik lugu olulisest valimisvõitlusest. Räägitakse kandidaatidest - see on hästi kirjutatud - aga pole toodud mingit lisainformatsiooni, kampaaniate kodulehti, debattide toimumiskohti, parteikontorite aadresse. Siin on teine hea artikkel uuest transiidi erastamise vastasest kampaaniast ilma ühegi vihjeta kampaania kontaktinfole. Järeldus näib olevat see, nagu lugejad meelsamini sööksid, loeksid raamatut või vaataksid filmi, aga mitte ei räägiks oma kogukonnas kaasa. Te võite mõelda, et see on väike asi, kuid minu meelest määrab see suhtumise ja toetab ohtlikku ideed, justkui poliitika oleks tugitoolisport.
Heroes: How do we view leadership? Look at these 10 movies. What do they have in common? Anyone? They all have heroes who were chosen. Someone came up to them and said, "You're the chosen one. There's a prophecy. You have to save the world." And then they go off and save the world because they've been told to, with a few people tagging along. This helps me understand why a lot of people have trouble seeing themselves as leaders -- because it sends all the wrong messages about what leadership is about. A heroic effort is a collective effort, number one. Number two, it's imperfect; it's not very glamorous, and doesn't suddenly start and suddenly end. It's an ongoing process your whole life. But most importantly, it's voluntary. It's voluntary. As long as we're teaching our kids that heroism starts when someone scratches a mark on your forehead, or someone tells you you're part of a prophecy, they're missing the most important characteristic of leadership, which is that it comes from within. It's about following your own dreams, uninvited, and then working with others to make those dreams come true.
Kangelased. Milline on meie nägemus juhiks olemisest? Võtame need kümme filmi. Mis neil ühist on? Kes oskab öelda? Neis kõigis on kangelaseks väljavalitu. Keegi on neile öelnud: "Sind on välja valitud. See on ettekuulutus. Sa pead maailma päästma." Ja siis ta läheb ja päästab maailma, sest talle on nii öeldud, koos mõne vähem tähtsa abilisega. Minu meelest see seletab, miks paljudel on raske näha end juhtidena. See saadab vale signaali liidriks olemise kohta. Kangelastegu on kollektiivne pingutus, seda esiteks. Teiseks on see ebatäiuslik, see pole glamuurne ja see ei alga järsku ega lõpe sama kiiresti. See on elukestev protsess. Aga kõige olulisem on, et see on vabatahtlik. See on vabatahtlik. Niikaua kuni me õpetame oma lastele, et kangelaslikkus on see, kui keegi kratsib su laubale märgi, või kui keegi ütleb, et sa oled osa ettekuulutusest, ei pööra me tähelepanu asjaolule, et juhiks olemine saab alguse meie seest. See on sinu enda unistuste järgimine - ilma, et keegi oleks kutsunud sind seda tegema - ja seejärel nende elluviimine koostöös teiste inimestega.
Political parties: oh, boy. Political parties could and should be one of the basic entry points for people to get engaged in politics. Instead, they've become, sadly, uninspiring and uncreative organizations that rely so heavily on market research and polling and focus groups that they end up all saying the same thing, pretty much regurgitating back to us what we already want to hear at the expense of putting forward bold and creative ideas. And people can smell that, and it feeds cynicism.
Poliitilised parted - oh jah. Need võiksid olla ja peaksid olema peamised hüppelauad, et kaasata inimesi poliitikasse. Selle asemel on neist kahjuks saanud organisatsioonid, mis pole ei inspireerivad ega loomingulised, mis tuginevad nii tugevalt turuanalüüsile, küsitlustele ja fookusgruppidele, et nad ütlevad lõpuks kõik ühte ja sedasama, paisates meile tagasi loosungeid, mida me kuulda tahame, ja tuues ohvriks julged ja loovad ideed. Inimesed tajuvad seda ning nende küünilisus kasvab.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)
Charitable status. Groups who have charitable status in Canada aren't allowed to do advocacy. This is a huge problem and a huge obstacle to change, because it means that some of the most passionate and informed voices are completely silenced, especially during election time. Which leads us to the last one, which is: our elections.
Heategevuslikud grupid ei tohi Kanadas avalikes küsimustes oma meelsust väljendada. See on suur probleem ja väga suureks takistuseks muutustele, sest osa kõige kirglikumatest ja teadlikumatest häältest on sunnitud vaikima, eriti valimiste ajal. Mis toob meid viimase punkti juurde - meie valimised.
As you may have noticed, our elections in Canada are a complete joke. We use out-of-date systems that are unfair and create random results. Canada's currently led by a party that most Canadians didn't actually want. How can we honestly and genuinely encourage more people to vote when votes don't count in Canada? You add all this up together, and of course people are apathetic. It's like trying to run into a brick wall.
Ehk olete märganud, et valimised on Kanadas täielik naljanumber. Me kasutame ajast ja arust süsteeme, mis on ebaausad ja juhuslike tulemustega. Kanada eesotsas on partei, mida enamik kanadalasi pole valinud. Kuidas me saame ausalt ja siiralt julgustada inimesi hääletama, kui nende hääl Kanadas ei loe? Kõike seda arvestades pole ime, et rahvas on ükskõikne. See on nagu vastu müüri jooksmine.
Now, I'm not trying to be negative by throwing all these obstacles out and explaining what's in our way. Quite the opposite -- I actually think people are amazing and smart and that they do care, but that, as I said, we live in this environment where all these obstacles are being put in our way. As long as we believe that people, our own neighbors, are selfish, stupid or lazy, then there's no hope. But we can change all those things I mentioned. We can open up city hall. We can reform our electoral systems. We can democratize our public spaces.
Ma ei soovi olla negatiivne, rääkides vaid takistustest, mis meie teel on. Vastupidi: ma arvan, et inimesed on head ja targad ja nad tõesti hoolivad. Aga me elame keskkonnas, kus kõik need takistused on meie teele pandud. Niikaua, kuni me usume, et inimesed, meie naabrid, on enesekesksed, rumalad või laisad, pole mingit lootust. Aga me võime seda kõike muuta. Me võime linnavalitsuse avada, valimissüsteemi muuta. Võime avalikku ruumi demokratiseerida.
My main message is: if we can redefine apathy, not as some kind of internal syndrome, but as a complex web of cultural barriers that reinforces disengagement, and if we can clearly define, clearly identify what those obstacles are, and then if we can work together collectively to dismantle those obstacles, then anything is possible.
Minu põhisõnum on: kui me suudame mõtestada ükskõiksust mitte kui sisemist nähtust, vaid kui keerulist kultuuriliste tõkete võrgustikku, mis pärsib osalust, ja kui me oskame selgelt tuvastada, mis need takistused on, ja kui me suudame koos töötada takistuste ületamiseks, on kõik võimalik.
Thank you.
Suur tänu.
(Applause)
(Aplaus)