MAKERS' RYZOMATIC NETWORKS

It is concerning that one of the consequences of the corporatisation institutions and organisation is that their managements tend to loose sight of their purposefulness. Their governing bodies may well have articulated a vision, objectives, and strategic imperatives. However, the managers are as likely as not to invoke pragmatic imperatives that run counter to the operation's purposefulness. Test this, and as often as not the response will be that there are insufficient resources to achieve this or that and maintain recurrent expenditure with salaries being a significant component.

Managerialism holds that if you have experience managing say roadworks it will equip yo to manage a factory producing almost anything and when DOMAINknowledge is required there will be an underling there to provide it. However, when a manager only has a vicarious knowledge of 'making' the trickle down can sometimes have catastrophic consequences.

With the pragmatic rationalisation of CULTURALlandscapes makers needs and aspirations become consumed by pragmatic managerial imperatives careless of such things as cultural sensitivities, sensibilities and placedness. All too often the bathwater is discarded expediently before checking for babies and the loses are incrementally devastating.

Given that HEADtoHAND sensibilities are anthropologically fundamental considerations, managerialism can, and sometimes is, a destructive factor . When management structures are self-serving and 'governance' looks away, an extra amount of lubricant is poured onto the SLIPPERYslope. Whatever, tools and TOOLmaking are fundamental to human existence. Again, it is what it is!

Throughout the diversity of human history/ies that have been played out so far, that is in all CULTURALrealities, the 'making' processes have been revered and honoured, and still are. Moreover, they are subliminally omnipresent. It is so albeit that pragmatic managerialism typically seeks to assert an imagined 'common denominator' that in turn blands down and blend all that lends placedness, substance, and materiality to CULTURALrealities and CULTURALlandscapes. Making's significance in a cultural context in an industrialised society has been diminished.

Arguably the STURTdecision bears all the hallmarks of managerialism in an industrialised society and in this case governance has essentially looked away for whatever reason. Indeed, what is the FRENSHAMpurpose here? At its most extreme errant managerialism it is an outrage in much the same way as intolerable and overt discrimination and grand larceny are.

It is worth going back to 'taws' from time to time to consider the FOURfundamentals that determine and define our humanity.

• Firstly, it is human imperative to sustain life ... oxygen, water, food, shelter;
• Secondly, it is human imperative to identify within the group one belongs to;
• Thirdly, it is human imperative procreate ... genetically and intellectually;
• Fourthly, it is human imperative is to establish a safe and secure HOMEplace.

Humanity's belief systems are underpinned by these factors and they are at the very foundation of the 'morality' that supports cohesive and mutually supportive social

"Ubuntu" is sometimes translated as "I am because we are" (also "I am because you are"), or "humanity towards others" (Zulu umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu). In Xhosa, the latter term is used, but is often meant in a more philosophical sense to mean "the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity".

Taking all this into account, it is culturally diminishing to bear witness to the downplaying of making and its cultural significance within the institutionalised and corporatised operational realities where 'profit taking' is now seemingly a key driver within operations that supposedly are there to deliver 'social goods' and cultural benefits. Utopia indeed!

In the corporate world cultural considerations just do not seem figure within their reason for being albeit that the 'corporate sector' does posses the means. In Australia there are too few incentives for the corporate world to seriously patronise cultural entities. Despite that there are some corporate entities that do offer philanthropic support. Cultural patronage can provide marketing benefits for corporations but in financial downturns pragmatics generally demand budget cuts and 'pauses'.

In any event cultural patronage is left to government for the most part.

The conversation here has come to that DICKENSmoment  where that the opening paragraph in his 'Tale of Two Cities'  resonates again and right now ... "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of ...... How indeed do you in the wake of a DYSTOPICevent lay down the foundations for making utopia? In one sense it is 'the best of times' albeit an exemplar of 'the worst of times'. Clearly in regard to the STURTdecision, FRENSHAM'Sgovernance erred albeit haplessly on the evidence. It is, sadly, unsurprising given that it is the sort of thing that goes on with corporatisation.

In one sense the STURTdecision is analogous to that canary down the coal mine gasping for oxygen as a indicator that the immediate environment has turned toxic. Sadly, it  is the case elsewhere – if not right now, then soonish. The STURTdecision is not unique and neither is the DYSTOPICparadigm that affords it's expression elsewhere. What is disheartening is that subliminally UTOPIANhope seems to under attack as if it poses a threat to the comforts enjoyed via managerialism and the STATUSquoism it supports.

The STURTdecision is but a ' tiny blip' on the screen of social planners' radar screens but it turns out  that there is a Community of Ownership and Interest COI who see it as being something more than that. OHYES. COI rather than 'stakeholders' because stakeholders qualify IF they have MONEY invested or 'at stake'. The corporate world is typically disinclined to acknowledge a COI as their mindset is MONEYoriented and anything other than that is beyond comprehension.

HOME