The Quarterly
Values and Cities
Dr. Lukas van Spengler
This article is based on the talk Lukas van Spengler gave
at Jane Jacobs: Ideas That Matter, October 1997.
Ideas that matter have a positive outcome; I think of people attracted
to them as reflective practitioners. People attracted to ideas that do not
matter stay home; they don't want to engage.
I am a practitioner. My message is based on everyday experiences from
industry and government-local and national. For the past 15 years I have
been an adviser to the prime minister of The Netherlands. I was a political
assistant without being a member of a political party. (This reveals a
peculiarity of Dutch politics.) I did not obey a party or a person and my
professional life did not depend upon the next election. I was free to
serve democracy and this included serving and obeying the prime minister
even on occasions when I would have preferred other guidelines. As you
understand, my work involved values and priorities, hence my topic, values
and cities.
Picture Rome, around 150 years BC. The city had become more and more
prosperous; the population had reached about 1 million. The water supply,
which depended on various sources including the river Tiber, springs and
wells, was not enough, creating a recurring structural threat, especially
during the hot summers. What to do? Julius Frontinus, the Roman official in
charge of the water supply, has left us a description of what he did, so we
can learn from it more than 2000 years later. He built 591 water fountains.
Cooling during the summer and contributing to the unique image of the city,
the easy access to water also allowed for improvements to sanitation and
public health. To supply this water, nine major aqueducts were built with a
total length of 250 miles, channeling fresh water from the mountains into
the city.
What we are talking about here, my friends, are values. Frontinus, the
official in charge, reports on this impressive achievement. He describes
the new water system as "a strong display of the government's might." He
emphasizes the usefulness of the aqueducts, compared to "the idle pyramids
of Egypt and the useless works of the Greeks." We must realize that the
qualification "useful" is considered to be a "value". In this case, the
magnificent aqueducts also serve as a sign of the power of the
government.
What can we learn from this 2000-year-old story? The Romans had a
problem: lack of water. They might have asked inhabitants to use less
water, or even installed a bureaucracy to ration water. Rather than
choosing to reduce the need for water, they increased the demand. Using the
problem as an opportunity, they created an even more unique city-one that
celebrated the value of fresh water with abundance.
Let us move from Rome to our own situation. We need to explore the
process of creation of values and the role of cities within that process. I
define values broadly to include visions, goals and ideals. Values are
principles for behaviour: they move individuals and offer standards for
evaluation. Values include everything that gives direction to actions; in
contemporary philosophy this includes thinking, seeing, feeling and acting.
It is not easy to discuss values. If you ask an individual about her or
his values they might feel invaded. Values are within the self, fixed at
the core of our identity; to reach them requires introspection. Values are
holy; they belong to our belief systems-that place where angels fear to
tread.
We have to be careful not to kill this topic by touching it. (Let us
hope the angels will be with us.) Our investigation might feel
uncomfortable, but it is urgent. I trust we are strong and vital enough to
become our own observers.
What is wrong with our established values?
As we look around our industrialized democracies, we can see we are well
off. But we are creating more problems from within-pollution and new
poverty, crime and mass unemployment, various types of addiction and
loneliness. These and other problems are man-made, caused by established
priorities based on our present values. We have to cope with a
contradiction: being well off versus the rise of man-made problems.
We now have enough food, enough heat, enough transportation, enough
teachers and doctors, and so on. In spite of this, the rich and developed
nations are producing more and more. The Gross National Products are
getting higher and higher. Nevertheless recent investigations show that the
quality of life is not rising in line with the GNP; on the contrary, it is
decreasing. How is this possible? We are producing not only more goods, but
also more and more problems.
What might we expect in the near future?
There is no reason to expect a sudden decline in the rise of man-made
problems. As long as we give priority to easy symptom-curing, the increase
will continue, facilitated by our actions. There is no way out, no escape,
except to change our established priorities and values. We are obliged to
learn from what we are doing and misdoing. History is putting on the
thumbscrews. The pressure to change is becoming stronger.
You might consider me a pessimist. You might say, "in my garden I see no
pollution, so pollution cannot be an important problem." Or you might say,
"there have always been a lot of problems, let's just go back to business
as usual, we don't need fundamental change." To me, this sounds like,
"Don't tell me there is unemployment, I have three jobs." I believe we can
change our values. We only need to become aware of our capabilities in this
respect.
Why should we change our values?
Let us look at cities, because historically cities have played a key
role in the creation of values. Cities, not nations, have also been sources
of wealth. The interrelation of cities, values and wealth are described in
the now-classic books by Jane Jacobs.
People need agreements to produce, store, transport and sell. In three
words, trade needs values. Traders have to agree to be honest, otherwise
they will lose clients. They need innovations to serve better and to
survive within the market. Cities have demonstrated a permanent quest for
progress; cities also need bridges and courts of law and many other
collective goods. Consequently, step by step, cities have become the source
of democracy.
What we have seen is a dynamic interaction among cities, economies,
wealth, freedom, democracy and values. Some people say, "do not be afraid.
Let cities play their traditional role and the creation of values will
continue by itself." In response, I have to say that I doubt if cities
still have the capacity to play their traditional role.
Even in rich countries, most cities are no longer sources of wealth.
They need money and receive lots of it from outside their boundaries.
Cities are also no longer isles of safety: they attract criminals. Nowadays
many inner-cities are less safe than the countryside. Cities used to be
places offering employment; nowadays many cities suffer from mass
unemployment. Historically, many moved to cities in order to improve their
situation, but these days, if they can afford it, they leave for the
country where they find better schools, better housing, better medical care
and less pollution and-I'm sorry-more parking space. A last point: many
cities are now showing a regression of values, a reversion to a less
advanced state, for instance to new forms of tribalism, both for the rich
and the poor.
I regret to put forward this statement but here it is: many cities have
lost their traditional capacity to create and sustain values. This decrease
in the supply of values is met with an increase in demand.
How do we create values?
Values result from interaction. Mostly, they are taken for granted,
considered to be fixed entities from some other planet. But if we look
closer, we discover a mechanism that is important for change and
development. Here is an example: In The Netherlands, individuals now have
the right-within limits-to ask for and receive a lethal injection. Why have
the Dutch changed their opinion on the delicate matter of euthanasia in so
short a period of time? Nearly all survey respondents refer to personal
experiences with death. They describe their confrontation with heavy
suffering, mostly over a long period, and insist repeatedly they do not
want to ever see this happen again. In other words, they have changed their
values based on personal experience. At first, this new legislation around
euthanasia might be seen as a sign of decreasing values, but the new law
actually demands more individual responsibility, more sensitivity and a
deeper empathy.
This is a switch from quantity to quality. The mechanism behind this
change in the law is an interaction between facts and values. The way it
works is obvious: values give direction to actions, which are experienced
and evaluated. If the outcome is experienced as harmful, values might
change and new values might be created. New established values and
priorities give direction to new actions, producing new outcomes leading to
new experiences, and so on. Indeed this dynamic interaction behind the
process is an example of a feedback system.
Is fast feedback-like we have seen with euthanasia-an exception? My
answer is no, we are getting used to this. Here are three other Dutch
examples from the last few years:
- Recently the values and criteria of our social-security system have
been changed because of negative experiences with the old system which
attracted too many people asking for help. The four biggest political
parties, including the social democrats, agreed upon a less liberal
system.
- The values of the new system for admission of aliens and refugees into
The Netherlands reflects less tolerance. The system based on the old values
caused too many problems and was too expensive.
- Centralizing Europe as a value has become less popular: many
governments and political parties have recently changed preference. They
now give priority to a less powerful federation above integration. This
change has been based upon negative experiences with the European
bureaucracy and policy, difficulties in managing large-scale problems, high
costs and a lack of democratic control. In the meantime people have given
priority to safeguarding the European diversity.
What conditions are favorable for the process of value-creation?
Now that we have discovered the dynamic interaction between values and
experiences, we can identify the conditions favorable in order to influence
the outcome of the process and change values. I shall limit myself to five
conditions:
Dialogue: It is essential to be able to listen to the
experiences of others and to learn from them. In Holland we have a saying:
two persons know more than one. Dialogue initiates understanding and
agreement within communities of families, firms and cities. Without
understanding and agreement, individuals can do nothing but follow their
own a priori and interest. This creates conflicts. We also need to dialogue
within ourselves, to be able to compare and evaluate the outcomes of
alternative values.
Within modern democracies (both nations and cities) we see the
increasing importance of dialogue. It has become the main task of leaders
of government to stimulate public discourse thereby giving active guidance
to the process of interaction and less guidance to the outcome. Modern
leaders are no longer persons of monologue; they show they are able to
listen and learn. Within industry we see the same development: leaders
(CEOs) now give guidance to the process of interaction, and less guidance
to the outcome. We have learned this in part from the Japanese.
What is the role of cities in this? Cities have always been at the
centre of dialogue. Just imagine a busy marketplace, square or street.
However, the role of cities has become less exclusive because we have at
our disposal new mediums for dialogue such as phone, email, internet, tv
and so on.
Diversity: Diversity is a precondition to real dialogue.
Without diversity, we would have nothing to say and nothing to listen to.
The traditional diversity of cities inspires citizens to observe and get in
touch with other customs and lifestyles; however, small communities often
show a dynamic diversity which is less dependent on local aspects, thanks
to the modern technology of communications and transportation.
Involvement: Involvement is needed for the interaction of
facts and values; changing one's values and priorities is a painful process
which touches individuals at the very core of their identity. Without
involvement, individuals close their minds to experiences that might harm
their identity, losing their sense of urgency around change. Business must
present a public sense of urgency-indicating they are open for change and
progress-to survive in the marketplace. If a fundamental change in values
is needed, a sense of urgency might not be enough; it might take a crisis
to involve people.
Responsibility: Responsibility is another precondition to
involvement. The word is related to respond, the capacity to react. Without
feelings of responsibility, individuals might escape from the painful
process of changing their own values.
Responsibility within cities is a matter of democracy; however, in spite
of democratic ideals, we often see decisions made far away from the
everyday life that the decision-makers pretend to serve. For this reason
"subsidiarity" has become a key word within the European Community. In
practice this principle means that higher authorities concern themselves
only with those issues which the lower authorities are less able to deal
with. For this reason cities and regions need their own tools and their own
tax money. And the scale of local and regional government should be
according to the scale of their problems, thus, metropolitan areas might be
needed around inner cities. Responsibility stimulates a dynamic interaction
between the practical outcomes and the values and political goals of
government.
Cohesion, Compassion and Empathy: These conditions of
involvement arise when individuals experience recognition, for instance as
a result of face-to-face contact (which is lacking in modern
communication). Dynamic cities serve as places where citizens can meet each
other; however, many cities today provide an anonymous environment. Modern
citizens often feel unrelated within time and space, with the street where
they live and their neighbours. They do not need one another because the
welfare state diminished intermediate structures. The collective memory has
decreased: in the past citizens used to take over their parents' homes and
relations, nowadays they move after a few years. Smaller communities, on
the other hand, offer a better environment for cohesion. In Holland we
still have a cultural dominance of the inner cities, but really, if you
compare cities with villages, there is no reason to put one above the
other.
These five conditions-and others-influence the process of interaction
that enables us, within limits, to sustain, develop and create values.
You might say the conditions and the mechanism of interaction behind
them is all very obvious. I agree, but often we do not make good use of the
obvious. Newton's discovery of the principle of gravity appeared obvious as
well, but his discovery still changed the world.
Dr. Lukas van Spengler is the former adviser to the prime
minister of the Netherlands.
