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.
Kako pogosto slišimo, da ljudem preprosto ni mar? Kolikokrat so vam že povedali, da prava, bistvena sprememba ni mogoča, ker je večina ljudi preveč sebičnih, preveč neumnih ali lenih, da bi skušali kaj spremeniti v svoji skupnosti? Danes vam hočem pokazati, da apatija, kot mislimo, da jo poznamo pravzaprav ne obstaja, ampak da ljudem ni vseeno, vendar živimo v svetu, ki aktivno jemlje voljo do vključevanja s stalnim postavljanjem ovir in preprek na našo pot.
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 --
Pokazal vam bom nekaj primerov kaj mislim s tem. Začnimo z mestno hišo. Ste že videli kaj takega? To je časopisni oglas. To je obvestilo o prostorskem planiranju nove poslovne zgradbe, da soseska ve, kaj se dogaja. Kot lahko vidite, jo je nemogoče prebrati. Potrebno se je prebiti čez polovico, da sploh izvemo o katerem naslovu govorijo in še nižje, v drobni pisavi, da izvemo, kako se lahko sploh vključimo. Predstavljajte si, če bi zasebni sektor oglaševal na enak način - če bi Nike hotel prodati par čevljev
(Laughter)
in dal v časopis takle oglas.
And put an ad in the paper like that.
(Applause)
(aplavz)
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.
To se seveda ne bi nikoli zgodilo. Takega oglasa ne boste nikoli videli, ker Nike resnično hoče, da bi kupili njihove čevlje. Medtem ko mestna uprava Toronta zelo jasno noče, da bi se vključevali v načrtovalni proces, saj bi njihovi oglasi izgledali nekako takole - z jasno razmeščenimi podatki. Dokler bo mestna uprava oglaševala na tak način, da bi skušali pripraviti ljudi k vključevanju, potem se seveda ljudje ne bodo vključevali. A to ni apatija; to je namerno izključevanje.
Public space.
Javni prostor.
(Applause)
(aplavz)
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.
Način, kako slabo ravnamo z našimi javnimi prostori, je velika ovira za kakršen koli tip progresivne politične spremembe. Zato, ker smo v bistvu postavili ceno na svobodo izražanja. Tisti, ki ima največ denarja, ima najmočnejši glas, ki gospoduje vidnemu in miselnemu okolju. Težava s tem modelom je v tem, da obstajajo neverjetna sporočila, ki jih je potrebno povedati, a niso dobičkonosna. Zato jih ne boste nikoli videli na jumbo plakatu.
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.
Mediji igrajo pomembno vlogo pri razvoju našega odnosa do političnih sprememb, v glavnem s tem, da ignorirajo politiko in se osredotočajo na slavne osebe in škandale. A tudi takrat, ko govorijo o pomembnih političnih zadevah, to storijo na način, ki po mojem jemlje voljo do vključevanja. Na primer: revija Now iz prejšnjega tedna - progresiven, urbani tednik iz Toronta. To je zgodba iz naslovnice. To je prispevek o gledališki predstavi, ki se začne z osnovnimi podatki, kje se dogaja, če bi si jo slučajno radi pogledali potem, ko ste prebrali prispevek - kje, čas, spletna stran. Enako s tem - recenzija filma, recenzija umetniškega dela, recenzija knjige - kje se nahaja, če bi slučajno radi šli ponjo. Restavracija - mogoče ne bi radi samo brali o nji, mogoče bi jo radi obiskali. Tako vam povedo, kje je, kakšne so cene, naslov, telefonska številka, itd ...
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.
Potem pridete do njihovih političnih člankov. Tu je odličen članek o pomembni predvolilni tekmi, ki ravnokar poteka. Govori o kandidatih - zelo dobro napisano - vendar brez informacij, brez možnosti nadaljevanja, brez spletnih strani kampanj, brez podatkov, kje te debate potekajo ali kje so pisarne volilnih štabov. Tu je še en dober članek o novi iniciativi, ki nasprotuje privatizaciji javnega prevoza brez kakršnekoli informacije o sami iniciativi. Kot kaže je sporočilo to, da bralci najverjetneje hočejo jesti, mogoče prebrati knjigo ali pogledati film, vendar nočejo biti vključeni v svojo skupnost. In mogoče si mislite, da je to nekaj majhnega, vendar mislim, da je to pomembno, ker nastavi podton in ojača nevarno idejo, da je politika šport za gledalce.
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.
Junaki: kako gledamo na vodenje? Poglejte teh deset filmov. Kaj imajo skupnega? Kdorkoli? Vsi imajo junake, ki so bili izbrani. Nekdo je prišel k njim in rekel: "Bil si izbran. Obstaja prerokba. Rešiti moraš svet." In potem se ta odpravi in reši svet, ker so mu tako ukazali, še z nekaj ljudmi, ki mu sledijo. To mi pomaga razumeti zakaj se veliko ljudi ne vidi samih sebe kot vodje. Zato, ker pošlje prav vsa napačna sporočila o tem kaj je vodenje. Junaško prizadevanje je skupinsko prizadevanje, prvič. Drugič, je nepopolno; ni zelo blesteče; in se ne nenadoma začne in nenadoma konča. Je stalen proces, ki traja celo naše življenje. A kar je najbolj pomembno, je prostovoljno. Je prostovoljno. Dokler bomo učili svoje otroke, da se junaštvo začne s tem, ko ti nekdo nariše znamenje na čelo, ali ti nekdo pove, da si del prerokbe, bodo zgrešili najbolj pomembno značilnost vodenja, ki je ta, da pride iz nas samih. Gre se za sledenje svojih lastnih sanj - nepovabljen, nepovabljen - in potem delati z drugimi, da se te sanje uresničijo.
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.
Politične stranke: ojoj. Politične stranke bi lahko in bi morale biti ena od osnovnih vstopnih točk za ljudi, da se vključijo v politiko. Namesto tega, so postale, na žalost, brez navdiha in neustvarjalne organizacije, ki se tako trdno držijo tržnih raziskav in anketiranja in ciljnih skupin, da na koncu vse govorijo iste stvari, izbljuvajoč nazaj bolj ali manj to, kar že tako ali tako hočemo slišati na račun izpostavljanja drznih in ustvarjalnih idej. In ljudje to zavohajo in to hrani cinizem.
(Applause)
(aplavz)
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.
Status dobrodelnosti: Skupinam, ki imajo v Kanadi status dobrodelnosti, ni dovoljeno zagovarjati svojih stališč. To je zelo velika težava in velika ovira za spremembe, ker to pomeni, da so nekateri najbolj strastni in poučeni glasovi popolnoma utišani, še posebej med volitvami. Kar nas privede do zadnje točke, naše volitve.
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.
Kot ste najbrž že opazili, so naše volitve v Kanadi "kar neki". Uporabljamo zastarele sisteme, ki so nepravični in ustvarjajo naključne rezultate. Kanado trenutno vodi stranka, ki je večina Kanadčanov sploh ni hotela. Kako lahko pošteno in pristno spodbudimo več ljudi k glasovanju, če glasovi v Kanadi pravzaprav nič ne štejejo? Ko vse to seštejemo skupaj, je jasno, da so ljudje apatični. Kot da bi skušal iti z glavo skozi zid.
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.
Nočem ostati negativen z izpostavljanjem vseh teh ovir in razlagati kaj vse nam je napoti. Prav nasprotno: mislim, da so ljudje neverjetni in pametni in da jim ni vseeno. Vendar, kot sem že rekel, živimo v tem okolju kjer se vse te ovire postavljajo v napoto. Dokler bomo verjeli, da so ljudje, naši lastni sosedi, sebični, neumni ali leni, potem ni upanja. Kljub temu lahko vse te stvari, ki sem jih omenil, spremenimo. Mestno hišo lahko odpremo. Naše volilne sisteme lahko preoblikujemo. Naše javne prostore lahko demokratiziramo.
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.
Moje glavno sporočilo je da, če lahko redefiniramo apatijo, ne kot neko vrsto internega sindroma, ampak kot kompleksno mrežo kulturnih ovir, ki ojača izključevanje, in če lahko jasno definiramo, lahko jasno prepoznamo, kaj so te ovire, in če lahko nato skupaj delamo na tem, da te ovire odstranimo, potem je možno karkoli.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(aplavz)