Development and Systematization

I have been thinking about the difference between top-down and bottom-up design. These two design processes approach problems in very different ways, and the processes is relevant to classroom strategies, communication problems, and social justice.

Top-down design is a way of encouraging efficiency by predefining an organizational scheme that will work for the entire problem. In essay writing, this would look like following an established template, and in social justice it would be the difference between local laws and national laws. Top-down writing strategies are great ways for planning out a paper, but it can also be restrictive. In more complex systems, like government, the tension between top-down and bottom-up solutions strikes me as important.

Social justice strives to address problems that are systemic in nature, and when addressing a system it is important to understand how that system operates. Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, Ricardo Salvador, and Olivier de Schutter talk about the need for national policies that regulate the food industry. They outline reasons for doing so, reasons that range from environmental impact to the health of our children, and they explain some of the goals of such a national policy.

And they are right, there are substantial problems that we are facing that need to be addressed. Childhood obesity is a big problem. Climate change is a big problem. Food safety is a big problem. Wages for workers and farmers are big problems. And addressing our food system from a national level may be a way to address many of these problems, but I am wondering how such changes require a fundamental shift in the ways businesses and communities operate. The top-down regulation here is a way of establishing efficiency and oversight that would be beneficial. So why would it be difficult to implement?

Bottom-up organization does not worry about ‘the big picture,’ but instead focuses on addressing needs at the local level. In this model of design, we look at the parts and maximizing the potential of parts in the belief that the whole will emerge stronger in the end. They explain,

“Our food system is largely a product of agricultural policies that made sense when the most important public health problem concerning food was the lack of it.”

Bottom-up, and pieced together policies, have been the regulating process for the food industry, and we have established a system that ensures food is widely available (although not everyone can afford it). Allowing the industry to develop without a central food policy, like the one Bittman et al. advocate for, has been beneficial in many ways. When does the bottom-up strategy collapse under new pressures?

Capitalism is a bottom-up organizational strategy, and it comes with the strengths and weaknesses of thinking locally. Our model of government uses bottom-up organization in many ways by relying on local communities to maintain their own interests. In many cases, this works well because local governments are more likely to understand the particular needs of the local population, and they can allocate resources accordingly.

Our history seems to be written in the tension between national and local government.

The cinematic masterpiece Biodome highlights the issue of climate change and sustainability. A line that sticks out from the film, and in some ways represents its theme, is something like: “Act locally, think Globally.” Finding ways to encourage people to see the way their interests are better served by thinking about their place within a larger system of work is, perhaps, one of the ways we should be thinking about activism.

In the end, I think that this problem asks whether or not we should believe it is better to work for our own interests and hope that we are bettering each other by striving toward success, or if we privilege the interests of the system, and accept limitations as being beneficial.

As an aside, I would like to note that this blog represents the tension between bottom-up writing and top-down writing. It functions as a site to develop ideas around individual readings or groups of readings. Being able to take on small issues in this way allows for (and encourages) an exploratory type of writing. Eventually, it will give way to a larger project though, much like the way the localized and pieced together policies must eventually be rethought on a national and systemic scale.

2 thoughts on “Development and Systematization”

  1. Thinking about this paragraph:
    “Capitalism is a bottom-up organizational strategy, and it comes with the strengths and weaknesses of thinking locally. Our model of government uses bottom-up organization in many ways by relying on local communities to maintain their own interests. In many cases, this works well because local governments are more likely to understand the particular needs of the local population, and they can allocate resources accordingly.”
    There’s a lot more you could parse out here, I think. The bind really grabs hold when the forces at the top limit funding for the needs at the local level, leaving those who allocate resources with none to allocate, despite knowing the needs.

    1. I agree, and after the guest lecture last week I had a lot to think about the way power consolidates and uses the cracks in regulation and oversight to stomp out alternatives and competition.

      Its a mess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *