Part Four
Walking with the winds of change
The Trickle Down Theory, Mythology, Aged Care
That governance is often perceived to lie, cheat and steal as it enacts legislation can be explained, in part, that governance often goes to some lengths to excuse corporations from the retribution demanded via the pub test for the same behaviours. It is ironic therefore, that when workers demand a ‘fairer workplace with better conditions’ to improve social capital, governance usually sides with employers citing the economic imperative within the Trickle Down Theory which, as a myth, puts profits before people. In recent years it has become ever more evident that workplaces have become far less secure as casualization, wage theft, outsourcing, independent contractors, online platform workers, contract firm workers, on-call workers and temporary workers took precedence in the ‘modern’ technological workplace. Although we have already explored the brave new world of AI one major influence we did not address was how the Worker, that is everyone outside of the corporate Board Room and their share holders, were silenced and diminished as Industrial Relations were weaponised in the name of the Economy.
However, today the major problem for governance is the ‘Economy’ as such is a myth for the 19thC Capitalist Marketplace no longer exists, as was previously argued, because it was replaced by the networking and technology of the 21stC. So, as Covid19 ravaged the economies of the world, it also unravelled the mythologies relating to the Workplace because as Governments scrambled to pump trillions into national economies to bail out the corporations, it only defined the fact that social divides were being made wider and carpet baggers made richer. It soon became evident this monumental failure of governance actually made the fall out from the pandemic far worse than it should have been for it demonstrated the ways Corporatisation had been diverting the Social Capital held within communities into private pockets for centuries. One of the major thefts of Social Capital exposed by the pandemic was the mythology of the Trickle Down Theory, even though governance was and is still adhering to its dogma. Theft from Social Capital occurs because parasitical corporations rarely return wealth to local communities and in many cases do not contributed to Capital Wealth simply because debts raised between corporations are utilised to obscure profitability and taxation. Do you disbelieve me, well let’s have a look at the evidence shall we?
The mythology within the Trickle Down Theory is most evident within the Tourist industry. If it is accepted that tourism today is part of the entertainment industry it can be clearly seen how corporate capture changed the ideal of entertainment as an expression of self, as in people making their own entertainment, into something that people purchased as part of a package ‘deal’. Even if we put to one side the ethics of ‘selling’ seduction, the images of Tourism seldom hide the exploitation, over consumption, waste, sleaze and environmental degradation of an industry built on the prostituting of human need. However, even though the failures of tourism have been well documented for centuries its governance has remained duplicitous for, as Covid19 demonstrated, the majority of industry shortcomings were the result of incompetent management, insufficient oversight of regulatory bodies and the corruption of foreign flagged vessels and aircraft coupled with tax havens and an exploited workforce. So, while governance put their trust into technology and profits, instead of oversight, the Tourism industry showed how the hype and rhetoric of incompetent mismanagement coupled with greed was to help spread Covid19 globally and then strand people in foreign countries for months.
So, can the facts speak for themselves? Fact, the Technology of Covid19 is (as I write) still being developed while globally a significant percentage of people die from its ravages and the Pandemic shows few signs of easing. Fact, as corporations threw up their hands and withdrew into ‘bail out mode’, the essential workers of the world had to continue in the front line simply because their work demanded they do so. These millions of workers have carried the world with them as they faced the crisis and these are the people who should have received our thanks and support rather than their corporate employers. However, trillions of dollars flowed into the corporate sector to prop up executives who were only interested in retaining their dividends. Fact, while armed police roam the streets seeking protesters and others breaking curfew, literally millions of ‘essential’ workers had to work across multiple worksites but, although they faced the dangers and hardships of a pandemic, many lost their jobs or saw their pay cut as corporations shielded their profit margins. So, while these everyday people, drawn from all walks of life, their families, friends and, of course, their communities who come together to support them were the people the world now trusted and relied upon; these were the people who governance and industry threw to the wolves. Doctors, nurses, ancillary staff, the professionals, the trained, the skilled, the talented, all who came together to face the hardships and uncertainty had to look on as wages were frozen, welfare benefits cut, pandemic supplements reduced and many long term employees were replaced with gig economy ‘contractors’.
Unfortunately, our conversation has become heated and I will not allow my language to descend into profanity. But I would add after Covid19 it is now an imperative that Corporate governance must learn to truly respect and learn from its workers because you cannot manage a country, you have to work it. You can’t order people, for you have to lead them. And you cannot buy health and wellness, for these need nursing. But this leads to a question, has governance learned from the pandemic and if it has how is it now responding to the demands of the crisis because it appears that thousands of people may have died needlessly? Unfortunately, the answer is governance because it put Wealth before People, refused its Duty of Care, blamed others for their lack of diligence and then turned their backs on the country by refusing to stand with and support the workers learned very little for they were governing for Corporate Capital. So, here the facts speak for themselves.
Governance attacked unions during the pandemic for standing against corporate rorts and lies; armed police were detailed to ‘oversee’ and break up protests by workers who wanted to make workplaces safer and the refusal to address any criticism or incompetence of corporate mismanagement represented a disgraceful Abuse of Power. The people stood tall, stood proud and stood together when they were needed. So, while it may be an uncomfortable truth that only a country’s workers can lift their people out of the mean circumstances of technocratic governance this too hides a paradox. Here, although the world no longer relies on fossil fuels, as there are many alternatives, many millions of workers still rely on the incomes these fuels generate because governance and industry still live in the past and refuse to invest in a renewable future. It is this observation that now brings us to one of the resolutions of our conversation for the point I make here is that workers seem to have been walking into the winds of change for far too long which means we need to review what we have learned as a matter of some urgency in order that we can utilise this learning to advance our workers and their future. And it will be this conversation that will allow us to walk with the winds of change so we can enjoy the fresh scents of hope.
To put this simply I will now argue that once Corporatised thinking and its dogmas have been excised from governance this will allow for a revival of communal conversations and this will be the inspirational spark of democratic expression that will draw people from diverse communities together. We have already spoken of the conversations that became evident as the pandemic took hold and the social and folk medias shared individual stories of the passions, arts, crafts and insights of the lock downs and shared the hardships. It was also evident these conversations reached across the world to share expressions of hope, communal events and the stories which brought solace and catharsis to the millions of people who craved light rather than darkness. What is also clear from this deconstruction is while the politics of corporatisation, through its mass and social medias were attempting to divide and silence people, it was the arts contained within the poetry of folk media that represented the breaths of politically free air that showed that people could walk and work together, facing the winds of change as companions.
Pathways to Social and Emotional Wellbeing
Unionism, our communities, health and wellness.
Marshall McLuhan talking about mediums and their messages “tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing” (Sivan 2017 ; McLuhan 1964 ) which when coupled with Clergyman Douglas Horton’s (1891–1968) motto, “learn to live, live to learn, then teach others” serves to highlight how self-consciousness combined with spiritual or metaphysical reflectiveness can come together to assist in the creation of an individual’s growth in both life and art. In more recent times it has been argued in contemporary studies (Moylan M. et al 2013) that it is through the provision of biopsychosocial support that, when coupled with informal learning, helps to provide impetus to “develop and demonstrate characteristics of a communal spirituality”[lii]. Whereby it is this thinking that takes us back to the teachings of the men’s sheds and the ideological support structures of contemporary unionism.
The globalisation of the men’s sheds movement in recent years raised a number of questions that asked whether it was the sheds’ ethos that represented the major narrative driving the success stories of the Australian men’s sheds or was this belief a form of suggestive or false memory that had formed to “bring the Sheds together, explain some of the research that was going [sic] and look at some of the health advantages that were already becoming apparent in Men's Sheds” (p.3) ((AMSA) 2015 ). However, it was the aim to ‘bring the sheds together’ which today stands as evidence as to how ideology and its bureaucracy will often divide and try to conquer rather than combine and strengthen key aims and processes. In Australia two ‘peak’ bodies were created to represent men’s sheds. Mensheds Australia founded in 2005 and the Australian Men’s Shed Association (AMSA) founded in 2007. It was soon to become evident that despite the organisational cajoling to combine operations and corporatize their image, individual sheds were to remain staunchly independent. This failure to Corporate, as Mensheds Australia later explained, was simply that, “men’s sheds are not the same as a franchise – they are all different! The character and operations of the shed are a reflection of their niche in their community” (Menshed 2018). This statement therefore recognises that there can be no one size fits all ethos for communal organisations, especially as it is interesting to note that such individualism within the sheds is an ethos, in itself, that continues to attract interest exponentially in other countries and cultures.
For example, the Irish Men’s Shed Association (IMSA) in 2012 broadened the Australian ethos into a more subjective narrative by identifying. “Good health is based on many factors including feeling good about yourself, being productive and valuable to your community, connecting to friends and maintaining an active body and an active mind” ((IMSA) 2018).
So, while the men’s sheds in Australia have been described as “an updated version of the shed in the backyard that has long been a part of Australian culture” ((AMSA) 2015). It was this description which objectivised the narrative to highlight the traditional but hegemonic masculine theme that the “Men’s Shed movement has now become one of the most powerful tools in addressing health and wellbeing and helping men to once again become valued and productive members of our community” ((AMSA) 2016 ). I would now draw attention to the manner whereby this operative mantra had morphed to become, worryingly, “once again”.
From these observations I would suggest that much of the research into the men’s sheds in Australia has been as a response to an ideological fear that the contemporary Australian ‘masculine’ narrative and its associated hegemonic bonding or ‘mateship’ ethos was becoming less relevant to the men. It was evident the time had passed when, “men … learned from our culture that they don’t talk about feelings and emotions [and] many do not take an interest in their own health and well-being” ((AMSA) 2016 ) (my brackets). Paradoxically however, this perceived reluctance for men to talk about emotions or help seeking had also been widely feared to be fuelling a ‘crisis in identity’ in men and boys (as per the LGBTI debate).
This crisis apparently stemmed from earlier research which argued that a valourisation of health amongst Western males was, “a result of the ‘hegemonic’ masculine code in which ‘real’ men are understood to be physically fit, uninterested in their health, and self-reliant” (Farrimond 2012). However, it should be noted that we have already identified history had bequeathed a legacy of myths and fused discourses which were being addressed by such as the men’s sheds. The sheds and their like now provide pathways to new discourses and paradigms to address agism and accompanying health issues including dementia, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, depression, PTSD and social anxiety all which have, for decades, exasperated the mental health issues suffered by so many in silence. Therefore, how such diverse discourses structure the way people think about their ‘health and wellbeing’ within individual communities will vary depending on the local environment, since these variables, as we have already explored, often shape the way people ‘see’ certain aspects of their community in a number of ways.
It is these variables that demonstrate how the descriptor, ‘social and emotional wellbeing’ (SEWB) is more holistic in its acknowledgement of the broader socio and historical discourses than the descriptor ‘mental health’ because the paradigm associated with social and emotional wellbeing has been broadened in its understanding to include the subjectivist or personal choices which can influence an individual’s life (Garvey 2008). This broadening of paradigms, terminology and discourses can also be applied to our discussions relating to the collaborative learning potential of the sheds and other organisations such as the unions as they debate their ability to bridge the gap between work and retirement.
One such study led by Jillian Cavanagh et al (2014) argues. “Due to the increase in longevity, and the fact older learners will find themselves in retirement and semi-retirement for longer periods of time men need to have support for activities beyond the workplace. This urges the need for lifelong learning which extends beyond economic purposes to include social and personal resolutions” (Jillian Cavanagh 2014) (p.366). This is an aspect expanded upon by James Sunderland (2017) who comments on the contribution the collaborative nature of the men’s sheds made to their membership’s sense of purpose and the social inclusion the sheds provide. He argues, “[t]here is a robust belief amongst members that constructive work is the key to realising other benefits of social inclusion and community contribution”. (Sunderland 2017 p.42).
I can argue therefore that to fully recognise how these fused discourses of health, education and work come together and how these are being addressed subjectively by local communities requires a closer examination of how an individual’s folk media is being constantly created, recreated and then sustained within communities, workplaces and social interactions. A narrative which could be read for example would show how it is the individual, rather than organisational management that maintains and connects, “the provision of an appropriate spatial context and organizational activities, encourage intrapersonal and inter-personal reflection and interaction that subsequently results in men meaningfully, purposefully and significantly connecting with the moment, to self, to others and to their environment [that] not only provides biopsychosocial support but can also deliver spiritual support” (Moylan M. et al 2013) within a local community. Which means in other words, it is a life force and the arts that life itself creates which reach out to converse with other life forces.
This means we turn now to Michael Foucault who spoke of discourses and the practices that relate to the verbal traces of history in speech. (Foucault 1989) This path allows us to explore the epistemic insights into the ‘unconscious’ structures underlying the spread of knowledge in a particular time and place and it will be these understandings which will then provide the basis of the paradigmatic structuring within our research. Foucault’s discourse analysis will also assist our exploration into how companionship, leadership and purpose blend to provide biopsychosocial support which inspires organisational learning and how this then enables individuals to construct their own metaphysical experiences in terms of being responsible, being inspirational in problem-solving and passionate in their beliefs (Janson 2008).
Through this approach we are able to seek to uncover the strategies which once learned or internalised within a particular ‘shared place’ (safe-place) enhances the individual’s ‘sense of place’ or ambience and combines shared values and principles that together creates a specific folk media that can create, recreate and sustain a shared narrative of hope within local communities. So, from observations to date, while the men’s sheds might be examples that, “leadership is rooted in the authority and power of followers” (Schweigert 2007) (p.325) which, as has been argued from inference, enables the men’s sheds to mobilise the collective talents, capacities and ambitions of the men who come to them. It can also be argued that men’s sheds can also be conceived as providing mainly older men with a communal location to participate in a range of activities such as craft work as well as somewhere to socialise with their peers in a male-friendly environment. Such observations thus suggest that inference alone is not enough evidence by itself for the men’s sheds to be recognised as a ‘Place’ that men can come to in a crisis.
Therefore, subjective based research into a shed’s folk media is now required to produce the evidence that while organisational policy and ethos can represent men’s sheds as inspirational places where men can find a place to reflect and unite (Manzo;D.Perkins 2006). It is actually the folk media the men are enabled to create that blends with Place to share the individual’s vision and passions through a combination of companionship, biopsychosocial support and communal spirit and it is this merging of the individual, the ambiance of their physical environment, the companionship and the arts so produced, which makes the men’s sheds learning places. Therefore, while it appears evident that men’s sheds have become reflective of their local community because the members and their narratives are drawn from the local area. It is interesting, as has been noted, that the members usually hold themselves and their shed as independent parts of the whole, in this they are holding themselves as autonomous from the politics of the governing body. So, it now appears the men’s sheds’ story is far more complex than positivistic research might suggest since it can be argued that the men’s sheds’ folk media is actually acquired from the expressing of life experiences and therefore, this artistic, informal learning broadens the metaphysical search for pathways to wellness. If such is true than it is an unfortunate trait that Western men have been arguably ill-equipped linguistically to face such complexity because hegemonic masculinity inhibited men’s creative expression and ultimately their ability to connect with their metaphysical Self. This can also be read as meaning that this is why there has been a growing disconnect between the health and wellbeing discourses within the mass media and men’s behaviour and thinking regarding pathways to help seeking (Farrimond 2012). I can now suggest that this study of folk media, as produced by men’s sheds in contemporary communities, demonstrates that an individual’s story, although unique, is also universal for, as an art form, it has since ancient times provided for a union amongst people, their communities and beyond.
This is why I previously introduced the concept of Unionism into our conversation because associations of workers have been evident in the UK and Europe since the 18th century when they brought both politics and the principle of collective bargaining into the workplace. It is clearly evident that the Union Movement by initiating and combining a sense of Place and individuality were able to initiate a library of stories, songs, pageantry, crafts and many other art forms that were developed to bridge the relationship between workers and their work place, helped to encourage safer and more equitable workplaces and disseminate knowledge and skills that enable local communities to become stronger, more resilient and sustainable (Kark 2003; Janson 2008). I would argue that unions were able to achieve their aims because they initiated conversations and supported individuals who were engaging with these conversations by introducing the provision of ‘safe places’ within the work place. Therefore, it is this observation which now allows me to argue that folk media, as one of the oldest voices of democracy, constitutes an important component of the resilience that will enable people to walk with the winds of change into a future which will reflect our dreams rather than a reality created by a technocratic ideology and the mass media. As was seen with the men’s sheds, once unions and their members define individuality, both for the organisation and its members, it becomes apparent that there can be no ‘one size fits all’ ethos applied to diverse work places.
This observation becomes especially true if we explore the ‘one size fits all’ corporatisation of the elderly and disabled for the privatisation of these ‘Industries’ reads like a Gothic horror story with degradation and death on every page. Unfortunately, my pen is not broad enough to bring into this story other associated elements such as the unemployed, under employed, homeless or even those who are yet to be born into the debt and poverty of unfettered Capitalism for although these stories have the same hallmarks as the one I’m relating, these are stories I feel I am not qualified to tell which is why I am trusting that someone, better qualified than I, will take my place at a keyboard.
Although it has been evident for decades that self interest and political expediency within the State and Federal Government funding models for the Health, Aged and Disability sectors were major contributors to the claim that, “[t]he marketisation of human services, competitive tendering and their impacts on the nature of services and relationships between them, has been a cause for concern … since the mid-nineties”[liii] little changed. The growth and breadth of privatized services highlights an overriding impression that the Ideals of inclusion, cooperation and a universally positive self-determinative provision of the services being delivered within local communities were the very Ideals the Health, Aged and Disability industries failed to adopt or address.
It is this summation which makes it evident that so called, Sector or Industry self-interest swamps the ability of local communities to provide for self-determination while the need for community awareness and inclusion are replaced with marketing and a promotion of image which increases costs to community sectors and inhibits the levels of cooperation between service providers. However, I would suggest this is only half of the story. It is also very evident that although the people delivering the services underpinning health in Australia today have proven to be dedicated, professional and committed to the advancement of their local communities their voices, interests and the needs of the local communities they serve are continually swamped by the bleating for ever increasing funding from State and Federal Governments. It is the creeping Corporatisation of the Health, Aged and Disability sectors which fuels an already fragmented, bureaucratic and economically fragile Health Industry with relentless political bickering over the needs of social welfare and the provision of universal health services with endless arguments over the disbursement of responsibilities between State and or Federal Government funding measures.
So, although this state of affairs has been recognised for a number of decades little has actually been addressed by successive governments and issues such as these below remain unacknowledged[liv].
• Inflexibility in existing funding streams – inability to move resources across programs limit the ability of health services to respond to community needs and changes within the system and in the community generally;
• Insufficient funding – there is substantial evidence of under allocation for Indigenous health services (AIHW 2008c) and workforce shortages in rural and remote areas (AIHW 2005);
• Inbuilt perverse incentives for cost shifting between Commonwealth and State governments. Commonwealth-state relations continue to be a complex and fraught area. The pattern has been generally one of Commonwealth funding being utilised to overcome state under-servicing in rural and remote PHC;
• Poor co-ordination and fragmentation in health program funding – divided responsibilities for funding different health programs limit the scope for an integrated approach to health care politically, as well as limiting continuity of care on the ground;
• A funding focus on remuneration of service providers, particularly GPs, rather than the needs of consumers, leading to a significant degree of supplier induced demand. That is, a financing system which is neither person-centred nor needs-based;
• A disease-based rather than primary health care focus – many rural communities would benefit from financing structures that support models emphasising a primary health care approach which focuses on the determinants of health, disease prevention and early intervention; and
• The shortage and maldistribution of the health workforce in rural and remote regions – where funding is provided for an episode of care on a fee-for-service basis, rural areas which are characterised by a reduced availability of health providers effectively forego resources to which communities are ‘entitled’, thereby exacerbating geographical inequities in the provision of health services”[lv].
However, while the loudest voices heard within the Health, Aged and Disability sectors relate to the need for more industry sector funding, rather than for the funding of health professionals within local communities. It is this argument which is based on a fallacy since all these industry sector spokespersons are actually claiming is that professionals cannot operate effectively without a well funded industry bureaucracy. Therefore, it is this type of fallacy that makes industry or corporate based policy inimical to the self determination of local communities because the corporate bureaucracies within the industry sectors continue to soak up an ever-increasing amount of what is envisaged to be community funding.
A 2006 NCOSS paper addressed this privatisation of human services: The marketisation of human services, competitive tendering and their impacts on the nature of services and relationships between them, has been a cause for concern at NCOSS since the mid-nineties. While we have not seen a wholesale switch to competitive funding practices, we have seen more clearly an approach to service delivery in which government seeks to control what is provided (not unlike the Welfare State) but to distance itself from the risks and responsibility of provision. The report then goes on to say:
These shifts have been accompanied by:
• more complex funding agreements and contractual arrangements;
• increased levels of accountability to government (but not to communities);
• an increased focus on governance and administrative arrangements;
• outcomes based funding that has the capacity to skew the client base (e.g. Job Network agencies may prefer the “easy” clients to the long term unemployed);
• increased provisi