little to big to little again

(oh, and I forgot the link that got me thinking on the below topic, Costa Rica's referendum on the free trade agreement with the US. For better or worse, the topic was at least discussed and understood by the population it affected before it passed.)

In class last week, Professor Rhodes talked about the often-underestimated capabilities of a community to understand for itself the decisions it can make. We had been talking about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth presentation and its value in taking the argument to "the people," who will be just as affected (in this case, by climate change) as those making the decision. I brought up the fact that maybe Al Gore wasn't bringing the full scientific understanding to the people, but he was at least summarizing the work that had been done. I'm trying to find the best way to put what I'm trying to add on to what we talked about in class, but it has to do with the balance between trust in the system and contribution to the system.

In class, when I brought up the fact that Al Gore's presentation is a simplification of the process that at least gets people to trust that the experts really aren't trying to pull one over, Professor Rhodes gave the qualified agreement, but emphasized that people do have more capabilities of understanding than usually credited with. I have been thinking about things that cloud this understanding. And I think a large part of it is distrust in the system (in this case, I would be thinking of the country at large), and this leads to a lack of motiviation and engagement in the decision-making process (another concept emphasized in class).

My thinking is colored by the other classes I'm taking, and this week in International Policy we went over some aspects of Game Theory, about why and when people priorotize their individual goals over the common goals, even if the overall payoff for the common goals is greater. (This is in some ways the crux of why I am interested in public policy). Two of the "solutions" to the Prisoner's Dilemma (in getting the "rational individual"'s decision that's best for him personally to coincide with the one that's best for the group) is to make the group that's making the decision smaller, and to make it known the group will make similar decisions in the future. Therefore, I think of the ideas of community that we are getting at are similar to the solution to the social problem--a finite group whose members all have some connection to each other, and foresee making decisions together in the future.

With fewer decisions being made at the local level, people have less of a reason to form a community that will attempt to understand the problems that are going to affect them. With less reason and motivation to understand problems of varying effect on the individuals, there will more more of an assumption that people aren't capable or willing to understand their problems. Which in turn is going to lead to politicians and extra-community leaders making decisions that will affect them.

OK, this is a little pessimistic, but it's a sort of overarching vicious circle that I can see as a problem in our country being so huge.

I wonder what sense of personal responsibility the children at the Edible Schoolyard will be gleaning from their experience. Will they be more likely to feel empowered when they see the connections they have to the world around them? Or will a small bastien of control in New Orleans seem artificial to them as they grow up and start experiencing the crushing frustrations of most adults trying their best to make a change to the city they love?