TED日本語 - デイブ・メスリン: 無関心への特効薬

TED日本語

TED Talks(英語 日本語字幕付き動画)

TED日本語 - デイブ・メスリン: 無関心への特効薬

TED Talks

無関心への特効薬
The antidote to apathy
デイブ・メスリン
Dave Meslin

内容

学校、建物の用途、市議会選挙などなどローカルな政治は私たちの生活に直接影響を与えます。なのに、なぜ私たちはもっと積極的に関わろうとしないのでしょうか?無関心だから?デイブ・メスリンは「違う」と言います。私たちが実際に関心があるにもかかわらず、私たちをコミュニティーへの参加から妨げる7つの障害を彼はこのスピーチで明らかにします。

Script

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.

And 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 farther 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 and put an ad in the paper like that. (Applause) 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 basically 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.

Public space. (Applause) 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 that 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.

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. And 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 to the restaurant. So they tell you where it is, what the prices are, the address, the phone number, etc.

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. And 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.

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 prophesy. You have to save the world." And then someone goes off and saves 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 it 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 that 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, uninvited -- and then working with others to make those dreams come true.

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. (Applause)

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.

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.

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.

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, we can clearly identify, what those obstacles are, and then if we can work together collectively to dismantle those obstacles, then anything is possible.

Thank you.

(Applause)

「関係ない」 何度耳にしたでしょう 「みんなわがままで バカで 怠け者だから 世の中が変わるわけない」 一体何度 聞いたセリフでしょう? 私がお伝えしたいのは いわゆる無関心というのは 本当は存在せず 私たちは関心がある一方で 私たちの参加を妨げる 多くの障害があるだけだということです

いくつか例をご紹介します まずは市役所から これ見たことあります? 新聞のお知らせで 建物の用途変更届けについてで 住民もプロセスに参加できます ご覧の通り読みにくい 途中でようやく どこのことかでてきます さらに進んで 小さな文字で 参加方法がやっとあります もし民間企業が同じことをすると 例えばナイキの広告では こんなふうになります (拍手) ありえないでしょ 目にすることはないです ナイキは靴を売りたいのですから 一方トロント市は明らかに 市民の参加を望んでいません でなければ こんなふうに わかりやすく情報を公開するはずです 役所がこんな広告を出しているうちは 市民が市政に関わりを 持とうとするわけありません これは無関心ではなく 意図的な排斥です

公共の空間 (拍手) 大きな政治的変化を起こすのに 大きな障害なのが 公共の場に関する考え方です 表現の自由に値札を付けてます お金を持った人が視覚的にも思想的にも より大きな宣伝ができます 問題なのは 大切なメッセージがあっても お金にならなければ 決して日の目を見ないということです

メディアは セレブネタや スキャンダルを報じるばかりで 私たちと政治の関わりを 断ってしまっています 重要な政治の記事を扱う時でさえ 関わりを促すようになっていません 例えば 先週の「ナウ」マガジン トロントの週間情報誌です これが一面 演劇についての記事です 実際に見たくなった人のために 公演についての基本情報が載ってます どこで いつ そしてウェブサイト 同じように映画のレビューも アートレビュー 本のレビュー 読書会の情報が載ってます レストラン情報 読むだけでは 満足できない人のために 住所や予算や 電話番号などが掲載されています

政治面はどうでしょう? 進行中の重要な選挙についての記事です 候補者についてのなかなか良い記事です でも補足情報や ウェブサイトがありません 討論会や選挙事務所の情報もありません 同様に交通機関の 民営化反対活動に関する記事ですが 問い合わせ先など載ってません こうして見て行くと 読者は食事や読書には興味があっても コミュニティーには関心がないようです 些細な事だと思ってますか? 私はそうは思いません これらが政治は傍から見物するもの という危険な前提を作っているからです

ヒーロー リーダーシップってどう思います? これらの映画の共通点はなんでしょう? わかります? ヒーローが選ばれし者という点です 「おまえが選ばれし者だ」 「世界を救うのじゃ」と預言者が言い お供とともに言われたとおり 世界を救うわけです なぜ多くの人が自分が リーダーでないと思うか明らかです リーダーシップについての間違ったメッセージを送っています 英雄的行為は みんなでするものです それが一つ それにかっこいいことばかりでも パパッと終わるものでもなく 一生続くものです 一番大事なのは自分から はじめるということです 子供たちに立派な行為は 人に言われてやるものだよと 教えている限り リーダーシップは自分で 始めるものだという本質を 教えることはできません 拒否されても 仲間とともに 夢を追い求めるのです

政党 やれやれ 政党は本来 政治への 参加の窓口に なるべきものです 現実は政党は 退屈で凝り固まった団体に 成り下がり 街頭調査や フォーカスグループの 調査に頼りっきりで その結果も ありきたりで 創造的なアイデアもなく 本当の世論とは逆行した意見です それを感じた人々は政治不信に陥ります (拍手)

慈善団体 カナダでは慈善団体に政策提言が許されていません 大問題で改善すべき大きな障害です もっとも熱心な意見がとりわけ 選挙中には聞かれないわけですから そして最後 選挙について

カナダの選挙はお笑いです 古臭い投票システム 不公平でおかしな結果 カナダの与党を ほとんどのカナダ人は支持してません 投票が正しく反映されないのに 投票を促すことなどできません こうして見て行くと もちろん無関心になりますよ 壁に突進するようなものですから

いくつかの障害を紹介してますが 私は悲観的なわけではありません 逆に人々はとても賢く 思いやりがあると信じてます 一方 私たちはこうした障害の中で 暮らしているのも事実です もし人々がわがままでバカで 怠けものならば 望みはありません しかし変化は起こすものです 役所をオープンにして 選挙システムを変え 公共のスペースを民主化できます

私が言いたいのは 無関心とは 心の病気ではなく 世間に張り巡らされた参加を拒む 障害の事だということです もしこうした障害を 特定して 力をあわせて取り除ければ なんだってできます

ありがとう

(拍手)

― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―

品詞分類

  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等

関連動画