IL CASO: Ecco perché i maschi sono destinati a tradire, un'etologo giustifica l'infedeltà del campione Tiger Woods

L'etologo giustifica l'infedeltà del campione Tiger Woods: "E' scritta nei geni del maschio, un richiamo della foresta" di DESMOND MORRIS

Tiger Woods con la moglie

Qualsiasi tigre in gabbia è uno spettacolo molto triste e Tiger Woods non fa eccezione. La settimana scorsa ha rilasciato una tormentata dichiarazione con la quale ha rivelato che lo sportivo perfetto, il dio del golf, è pur sempre un essere umano. La domanda che tutti si stanno ponendo è per quale motivo uno come Tiger - il cui ego non ha certamente bisogno di dover accrescere la propria autostima, con una moglie splendida e dei bambini adorabili - avverta la necessità, come egli stesso ha detto, di "trasgredire".

Per comprendere appieno che cosa è capitato a Tiger Woods, dobbiamo rimettere le lancette dell'orologio molto molto indietro, risalendo ai tempi in cui la personalità umana si andava evolvendo, tornando a quelle centinaia di migliaia di anni in cui gli uomini vissero in piccoli gruppi tribali di cacciatori e raccoglitori. Fu allora che il comportamento dell'accoppiamento umano mutò radicalmente. Invece di avere una stagione specifica per accoppiarsi, al pari di buona parte dei mammiferi, gli esseri umani iniziarono a restare sessualmente attivi tutto l'anno. Le femmine smisero di manifestare platealmente il periodo della loro ovulazione, e si mostrarono pronte ad accoppiarsi anche quando non potevano concepire. Gli esseri umani non si limitavano a fare sesso, ma si innamoravano. Le coppie diventavano stabili, creando le premesse per un'unità familiare umana.

Se questo sistema basato sulla coppia è stato così utile ai nostri progenitori, perché mai dunque l'evoluzione non l'ha perfezionato, così che quando due si innamorano il loro legame emotivo resta così solido da far sì che qualsiasi interesse sessuale per altri adulti sia automaticamente disattivato? La risposta è che una certa flessibilità nel sistema era necessaria, perché spesso i giovani maschi delle tribù restavano uccisi durante la caccia e le giovani donne talvolta morivano dando alla luce i loro figli. Se i sopravvissuti avessero dovuto restare fedeli in eterno ai loro partner, ciò avrebbe significato che dopo una tragedia familiare dal punto di vista delle riproduzione ci sarebbe stato un vero spreco, e questo nelle piccole tribù costituiva un problema di autentica sopravvivenza.

La flessibilità nell'accoppiamento implicava che il rischio di un interesse sessuale al di fuori della coppia esisteva sempre. Nelle piccole comunità tribali c'erano poche occasioni per dar adito a problemi di grossa portata, ma nelle odierne società urbane tutto ciò è naturalmente diverso, e assistiamo a un numero incalcolabile di divorzi. È lecito a questo punto chiedersi perché mariti e mogli debbano essere infedeli quando fanno parte ancora di una famiglia che funziona e anche nel caso in cui i loro partner non siano tragicamente morti giovani.

Che cosa li induce a lanciarsi in avventure sessuali potenzialmente disastrose? In termini evolutivi, il maschio adulto è indotto a "entrare in azione" da due necessità riproduttive distinte, entrambe motivate dalla preoccupazione di essere sicuro che egli tramanderà alla generazione seguente i propri geni. La strategia prevalente è quella di dedicare un'ingente parte del proprio tempo e delle proprie energie ad allevare i figli nati nell'ambito della coppia. Una strategia minore, risalente a un antichissimo passato, è quella che lo mette nella condizione, qualora abbia l'opportunità casuale di mettere al mondo altri figli, di farlo a patto che ciò non intralci la sua strategia primaria. Questo significa che l'uomo che ama la propria moglie e i propri figli può incontrare difficoltà a resistere alla tentazione di una breve avventura sessuale. E così, perfino in un matrimonio felice, entrambi i partner possono ogni tanto "trasgredire" per il potere di questa primigenia sollecitazione riproduttiva.
(c. 2009, Telegraph. co. uk
Traduzione di Anna Bissanti)
http://www.repubblica.it/

Clima/Copenaghen: "Si scioglie il Polo Sud addio Maldive fra 100 anni" Sott'acqua da Venezia a una parte di Manhattan, a Hong Kong al Bangladesh di MAURIZIO RICCI

Gli scienziati: per l'effetto serra i mari si alzeranno più del previsto
Sott'acqua da Venezia a una parte di Manhattan, a Hong Kong al Bangladesh

Da qui al 2100, addio Maldive. Ma anche addio a un bel pezzo di Manhattan, una larga fetta di Londra, di Hong Kong, più mezzo Bangladesh. E, naturalmente, Venezia. Tutto destinato a finire sott'acqua, con buona parte delle coste di tutto il mondo, per un innalzamento generale del livello dei mari di quasi un metro e mezzo. È una previsione molto più pessimistica di quella ufficiale, formulata dall'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, la commissione Onu sull'effetto serra, che si era fermata a meno della metà: 59 centimetri di innalzamento per fine secolo.

Nello studio - Il cambio climatico in Antartide e l'ambiente - redatto da nove scienziati (fra cui l'italiano Guido Di Prisco), con il contributo di oltre 100 ricercatori, per conto del Comitato Scientifico Internazionale per la Ricerca Antartica, invece, si sostiene che i mari si alzeranno, di almeno 1,4 metri. Non si tratta di scienziati contro scienziati. Le previsioni dell'Ipcc, infatti, non tenevano conto del possibile contributo dello scioglimenti dei ghiacci al Polo Sud nell'innalzamento dei mari. E non ne tenevano conto per un'ottima ragione: i ghiacci del Polo Sud, complessivamente, non si stanno sciogliendo. Ma il nuovo studio, definito il primo rapporto esauriente sul clima dell'Antartide, risolve questo mistero, sgombrando il campo da uno degli argomenti preferiti degli scettici dell'effetto serra, e avverte che l'eccezione Antartide è destinata a finire molto presto, con un impatto devastante sulle coste e sulla vita dell'uomo.

In effetti, mentre al Polo Nord, la banchisa artica si restringe ogni anno di più e i ghiacciai della Groenlandia perdono sempre più velocemente volume, a sud, in Antartide, negli ultimi 30 anni, è cambiato assai poco. Per gli scettici dell'effetto serra è la prova che il riscaldamento del pianeta non è un fenomeno globale, onnipresente e continuo. Ma il nuovo studio risolve l'enigma. La cosa più stupefacente, osserva John Turner, che ha coordinato i lavori del rapporto, è la prova di come un impatto causato dall'uomo abbia schermato la maggior parte dell'Antartide da un altro impatto causato dall'uomo. L'eccezione Antartide, infatti, si spiega con un paradosso. A isolare il Polo Sud dal riscaldamento globale è stato, infatti, finora, il buco dell'ozono. Un altro disastro umano: lo strato di ozono dell'atmosfera, compromesso da una serie di prodotti chimici industriali, protegge, infatti, il pianeta dalle pericolose radiazioni ultraviolette della luce solare. Il buco dell'ozono sopra l'Antartide, negli ultimi decenni, ha, tuttavia, prodotto, secondo lo studio, un rafforzamento di circa il 15 per cento dei venti oceanici, che hanno isolato il continente antartico dal riscaldamento globale.

Ma tutto questo sta finendo. Grazie ad un accordo internazionale, non molto diverso da quello che, nei prossimi giorni, si tenterà di raggiungere a Copenaghen sull'effetto serra, i componenti chimici industriali che attaccano l'ozono sono stati messi al bando. Il risultato, paradossale, è che, il buco si sta chiudendo e, nel corso di questo secolo, scomparirà del tutto. Così, l'Antartide sta cominciando ad essere pienamente coinvolta nel riscaldamento globale. La concentrazione di anidride carbonica e di metano nell'atmosfera, dice Turner, è senza precedenti negli ultimi 800 mila anni. Gli scienziati non si aspettano mutamenti drammatici sulla massa continentale antartica. Sulla terraferma, l'aumento di temperatura non dovrebbe superare i 3 gradi, insufficienti a sciogliere i ghiacciai del continente. Ma il problema sono i ghiacci marini, che circondano l'Antartide e che verranno raggiunti da acque più calde. Lo studio prevede che un terzo dell'attuale ghiaccio marino, se l'effetto serra non verrà fermato, si scioglierà. Significa 2,6 milioni di chilometri quadrati di ghiaccio che si tramuta in acqua. Quanto basta per raddoppiare l'effetto sul livello dei mari dello scioglimento nell'Artico e in Groenlandia. Il totale è mari e oceani più alti di almeno 1,4 metri, a sommergere coste ed isole.

Una buona parte delle coste italiane - soprattutto l'alto Adriatico, dal Po a Trieste, ma anche sul Tirreno, dalla Toscana alla Campania - finirebbe sott'acqua. La situazione sarebbe, comunque, drammatica in tutto il mondo. Storicamente, il grosso dell'urbanizzazione è sempre avvenuto in prossimità delle coste e la popolazione si addensa vicino al mare. Quasi tutte le grandi megalopoli moderne sono anche dei porti, nei paesi sviluppati come in quelli emergenti: New York, Londra, Sydney, come Lagos, Calcutta, Shanghai.
Difendersi da un mare che si alza di qualche centimetro ogni anno non è la stessa cosa che fermare uno tsunami. Ma l'Olanda testimonia l'impegno e gli sforzi enormi necessari per frenare il mare. E le ricorrenti inondazioni del Bangladesh di cosa succede quando questo non è possibile. Il rapporto degli scienziati sull'Antartide non è comunque solo pessimismo. Probabilmente, agli abitanti delle Maldive, condannati a seguire il destino di Atlantide non importerà molto. Ma, dicono gli scienziati, i pinguini dell'Antartide, nei prossimi decenni, dovrebbero cavarsela lo stesso egregiamente.

http://www.repubblica.it/

"Si scioglie il Polo Sud
addio Maldive fra 100 anni"

di MAURIZIO RICCI

Clima/Copenaghen: Da anidride carbonica a vegetariani ecco l'alfabeto che salverà il pianeta di JEREMY RIFKIN

La svolta di Obama è la premessa per un cambiamento molto più radicale
Via alla Terza rivoluzione industriale che non è né di destra né di sinistra

Abbiamo due settimane per tirare il freno d'emergenza ed evitare la catastrofe climatica. Ma per raggiungere l'obiettivo dobbiamo rompere i vecchi schemi: non più solo obblighi ma spazio per la Terza rivoluzione industriale che non è né di destra né di sinistra.
Ecco un alfabeto per capire qual è la posta in gioco.

ANIDRIDE CARBONICA Il mutamento climatico sta procedendo a velocità superiore alle previsioni: l'obiettivo che fino a ieri sembrava sufficiente, un tetto di concentrazione di CO2 in atmosfera di 450 parti per milione, non ci protegge dal rischio della catastrofe. Come dice Jim Hansen, uno dei più accreditati climatologi, invece di continuare ad accumulare anidride carbonica in cielo dobbiamo tornare indietro, verso le 280 parti per milione dell'era preindustriale. Oggi siamo a quota 387: scendiamo almeno a 350.

BRASILE Meglio tardi che mai. Per decenni il Brasile è stato responsabile della deforestazione dell'Amazzonia, una devastazione che minaccia la sicurezza di uno degli ecosistemi fondamentali. Oggi il governo di Lula ha cambiato rotta: Copenaghen può essere il momento di rendere ufficiale la svolta.

CINA E' il paese che emette più anidride carbonica di tutti gli altri. Ma sta già pagando un prezzo pesante, in termini di vite umane, al cambiamento climatico. Se potesse scegliere tra il carbone e le tecnologie più avanzate della terza rivoluzione industriale cosa farebbe?

EFFICIENZA ENERGETICA E' la base per il riassetto energetico. Molti tagli di emissioni si possono realizzare eliminando gli sprechi e l'inefficienza.

FONDI I fondi per il trasferimento delle tecnologie avanzate ai paesi meno industrializzati sono un atto di giustizia: non si può penalizzare proprio chi è stato escluso dalla seconda rivoluzione industriale. Bisogna permettere a questi paesi di fare il salto della rana passando direttamente alla Terza rivoluzione industriale.

IDROGENO Le rinnovabili sono una fonte pulita ma non costante: c'è bisogno di un serbatoio per immagazzinare l'energia prodotta durante i momenti di picco. Questo serbatoio è l'idrogeno che permette anche di riutilizzare in modo flessibile l'energia accumulata.

KYOTO E' stato il momento che ha segnato l'inizio del percorso dalla geopolitica alla politica della biosfera.

LAVORO La Terza rivoluzione industriale dà spazio a sistemi labour intensive e produrrà milioni di posti di lavoro.

NUCLEARE Il nucleare è la tecnologia della guerra fredda. In più di mezzo secolo non ha risolto i suoi problemi, anzi li ha aggravati: rischi di incidenti durante tutte le fasi del ciclo di produzione, rischio terrorismo, rischio scorie. E nessun beneficio economico.

OBAMA La svolta di Obama è la premessa per un cambiamento che dovrà essere molto più radicale: senza la visione d'assieme, senza la capacità di pensare a lungo termine, il rilancio delle fonti rinnovabili è privo di solide basi.

POST KYOTO La conferenza di Copenaghen può avere successo se si fa il salto dalla prospettiva degli obblighi a quella delle opportunità. Invece di pensare solo a quantificare quello che non si deve fare bisogna cominciare a dire quante fonti rinnovabili, quanti edifici sostenibili, quanto idrogeno, quante smart grid deve realizzare ogni paese.

RINNOVABILI Sono il primo pilastro della terza rivoluzione industriale. Due regioni spagnole, la Navarra e l'Aragona, in dieci anni sono arrivate al 70 per cento di elettricità da fonti pulite. Perché non fare altrettanto?

SCETTICI E' un gruppetto inesistente sotto il profilo scientifico. Riescono ad avere visibilità perché sono supportati dalle lobby delle vecchie fonti energetiche che li usano per seminare dubbi nell'opinione pubblica.

TERZA RIVOLUZIONE INDUSTRIALE Permette sia lo sviluppo economico che la riduzione delle emissioni serra. Poggia su quattro pilastri: le energie rinnovabili, gli edifici sostenibili, l'idrogeno e le reti intelligenti, le smart grid per distribuire l'energia secondo il modello del web. La Terza rivoluzione industriale significa spostare il potere dalle oligarchie che gestiscono le grandi centrali elettriche alle persone. Oggi parliamo attraverso Skype e si creano network liberi di scambio e condivisione delle informazioni. Perché non farlo con l'energia?

UNIONE EUROPEA E' stata l'apripista della battaglia per la difesa della biosfera. E lo ha fatto in condizioni di isolamento e di grande difficoltà. Ora può guardare con più fiducia al futuro, soprattutto se saprà sfruttare le sue grandi potenzialità.

VEGETARIANI La seconda causa di cambiamento climatico al mondo è l'emissione di CO2 derivante dall'allevamento di animali, ovvero dalla grande quantità di carne che consumiamo. Per abbattere le emissioni bisogna passare alla dieta mediterranea, come in Italia, mangiando molte verdure e molta frutta.
(testo raccolto da Antonio Cianciullo)
http://www.repubblica.it/

Da anidride carbonica a vegetariani
ecco l'alfabeto che salverà il pianeta

di JEREMY RIFKIN

The New York Times - New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill, By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and passionate divisions surrounding the issue.

The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who steered close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times - Senator Thomas K. Duane gave Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson a kiss after she said she would support same-sex marriage.

Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state's definition of marriage.

"Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers," said Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader. "I just don't think the majority care too much about it at this time because they're out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet. And I don't mean to sound callous, but that's true."

The defeat, which followed a stirring, tearful and at times very personal debate, all but ensures that the issue is dead in New York until at least 2011, when a new Legislature will be installed.

Since 2003, seven states, including three that border New York, have legalized same-sex marriage. But in two of the seven — California last year and Maine last month — statewide referendums have restricted marriage to straight couples, prohibiting gay nuptials. Pollsters say that while support generally is building for same-sex marriage, especially as the electorate ages, voters resist when they fear the issue is being pushed too fast.

In Albany on Wednesday, proponents had believed going into the vote that they could attract as many as 35 supporters to the measure; at their most pessimistic, they said they would draw at least 26. They had the support of Gov. David A. Paterson, who had publicly championed the bill, along with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Senate Democratic leadership.

The defeat revealed stark divides: All 30 of the Republican senators opposed the bill, as did most of the members from upstate New York and Long Island. Support was heaviest among members from New York City and Westchester County and among the Senate's 10 black members. Seven of the Senate's 10 women voted for it.

"I'm a woman and a Jew and so I know about discrimination," said Senator Liz Krueger of Manhattan.

Senators who are considered politically vulnerable also voted almost uniformly against the bill, including four first-term Democrats. All but one of those whose districts border or lie within the 23rd Congressional District, where the marriage issue erupted in a recent special election, opposed it. In that race, a Republican who supported gay marriage withdrew after an uproar from conservatives in her district.

"I think that there were political forces that in some respects intimidated some of those who voted," said Mr. Paterson. "I think if there'd actually been a conscience vote we'd be celebrating marriage equality right now."

While gay rights supporters such as Mr. Paterson had prominently pushed for passage, the opposition was less visible but ultimately more potent. That was reflected in the floor debate Wednesday: Opponents remained mostly silent; all but one of those who spoke on the floor supported the measure.

The state's Roman Catholic bishops had consistently lobbied for its defeat, however, and after the vote released a statement applauding the move.

"Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable," Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in the statement. "However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society."

Several supporters said they felt they had been betrayed by senators who promised to vote yes but then, reluctant to support an issue as politically freighted as same-sex marriage if they could avoid it, switched their votes on the floor when it became evident the bill would lose.

"This is the worst example of political cowardice I've ever seen," said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat. "Clearly people said things prior to coming to the floor and behaved differently."

Republican advocates who supported the bill insisted that the agreement they struck with Democrats called for Democrats, who have 32 seats in the 62-member Senate, to deliver enough support so only a handful of Republicans were needed to take such a politically risky vote.

"Several Republicans wanted to vote for this," said Jeff Cook, a legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans. "But those Republicans aren't willing to take a tough political vote when the bill has no chance of passage. And that's the political reality."

It is rare for legislation to reach the floor in Albany when passage is not all but assured. And initially, gay rights advocates resisted bringing this bill to a vote, fearing the consequences of a defeat. But they shifted that strategy over time, becoming convinced that an up or down vote was necessary so they could finally know which senators supported the bill.

That was in part because gay rights groups, which have become major financial players in state politics, wanted to know which senators they should back in the future and which ones to target for defeat.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York's largest gay rights group, hinted that senators who voted against the bill on Wednesday could face repercussions. And Christine C. Quinn, the New York City Council speaker, echoed that sentiment, saying, "Anybody who thinks that by casting a no vote they're putting this issue to bed, they're making a massive miscalculation."

Polls suggest that voters in New York favor same-sex marriage, though the electorate is clearly split. A poll released Wednesday by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie showed that 51 percent of registered voters supported same-sex marriage while 42 percent opposed it.

On Wednesday, as news of the vote made its way to demonstrators standing outside the Senate chamber, some erupted in angry chants of "Equal rights!" and surroundeda senator who opposed the measure.

Correction: A previous version of this article stated incorrectly that the California State Legislature adopted a same-sex marriage law. Same-sex marriage in California was legalized by the state's Supreme Court.

By JEREMY W. PETERS

Globale o locale? La politica cerca una nuova identità di Alain de Benoist

Nel XVIII secolo è nato il liberalismo; nel XIX il socialismo; nel XX il fascismo. E ora quale sarà il tratto fondamentale del XXI?

Alla caduta del Muro piansi d'emozione. Il Muro non era una frontiera. Le frontiere possono essere un luogo di scambio: filtrano, non fermano i flussi. Ma non ci sono scambi dove c'è un muro. Nei decenni il Muro di Berlino mi parve un'orribile cicatrice. Vederlo crollare fu una vera gioia, così come sentire i manifestanti delle due Germanie gridare in coro: Wir sind ein Volk! (Siamo un solo popolo!). Le delusioni vennero dopo.

Innanzitutto la riunificazione tedesca non fu superamento dei sistemi della Repubblica federale di Germania (Brd) e della Repubblica democratica tedesca (Ddr), ma assorbimento della Germania est nella Germania ovest. I tedeschi orientali divennero «occidentali». Passarono dalla Ddr, sotto influenza sovietica, alla Germania, sotto influenza «atlantica».

Annuncio dello sgretolarsi del sistema sovietico, la caduta del Muro di Berlino non segnò solo la fine del dopoguerra. Chiuse anche il XX secolo, il «secolo breve»: 1917-89 (la guerra del 1914 cambiò natura nel '17, con la rivoluzione russa e l'entrata in guerra degli Stati Uniti). Più in generale, finì l'ampio vasto ciclo della modernità, cominciato dal Rinascimento. Dagli anni '90 siamo nell'era postmoderna, non più nell'era degli Stati-nazione, ma in quella delle comunità, delle reti e dei grandi complessi continentali.

Troppo spesso si dimentica il contributo alla globalizzazione dato dalla fine dell'Urss. Ormai il pianeta è unificato, ma di un'unificazione dialettica, perché, in reazione al movimento principale, comporta un'altra frammentazione. Ma le frontiere non fermano più niente: né uomini, né merci, né comunicazioni, né tecnologie. I mercati finanziari agiscono in «tempo reale» da un capo all'altro della Terra. In un attimo le crisi locali diventano mondiali. La tecnoscienza s'estende ovunque. Il liberalismo e la logica del capitale dominano tutto, mentre l'ideologia dei diritti dell'uomo è la nuova religione civile. Un mondo di tal fatta non ha più nulla d'«esterno» (nel senso che, durante la Guerra fredda, il «mondo libero» era «esterno» al blocco sovietico). È ciò che Paul Virilio chiama globalitarismo.

Infine la caduta del Muro di Berlino estingue il Nomos della Terra risalente al 1945. In greco nomos è «legge», ma anche, in origine e in generale, «ripartizione, spartizione». Il Nomos della Terra descrive la disposizione generale dei rapporti di forza internazionali. Carl Schmitt distingue il susseguirsi di tre grandi Nomos della Terra: il primo va dalle origini alla scoperta del Nuovo Mondo; il secondo si confonde con l'ordine degli Stati-nazione nati dal trattato di Westfalia; il terzo scaturisce dalla fine della II guerra mondiale e si connette all'ordine binario (americano-sovietico) di Yalta. La nostra epoca d'incertezza e transizione - quanto lontana dalla fine della storia, annunciata da Francis Fukuyama! - ci fa chiedere: quale sarà il quarto Nomos della Terra? Avremo il mondo unipolare, consacrazione del potere planetario della potenza dominante, gli Stati Uniti d'America; o avremo il mondo multipolare - pluriversum, non universum -, dove i grandi complessi culturali e civili si manterranno diversi, agendo come poli regolatori della globalizzazione?

La questione del quarto Nomos della Terra pone però anche il problema della «quarta teoria politica». Il XVIII secolo vide nascere il liberalismo; il XIX, il socialismo; il XX, il fascismo. Nel XXI quale teoria politica nascerà? Oggi ogni grande ideologia che abbia formato la modernità è in crisi e, come ogni famiglia politica, cerca una nuova identità. La teoria politica del futuro combinerà e supererà, nel senso hegeliano del termine, le passate teorie. Tenterà di combinare libertà e giustizia sociale, lotta all'alienazione e volontà d'autonomia, senso della misura e affermazione di sé, valori disinteressati e «comune decenza» (common decency) di George Orwell. C'è una connessione fra globalizzazione, postmodernità, quarto Nomos della Terra e quarta teoria politica.
(Traduzione di Maurizio Cabona)

Corner Office: 68 Rules for success? No, Just 3 Rules for success Are Enough - interview with William D. Green, chairman and C.E.O. of Accenture

This interview with William D. Green, chairman and C.E.O. of Accenture, was conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant.

Dan Neville/The New York Times

William D. Green, chairman and chief executive of Accenture, the consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, says competence, confidence and caring are vital to success.

Q. Tell me about important leadership lessons you've learned?

A. I'm a proud plumber's son from Western Massachusetts. In my family, working with tools is the highest honor. It isn't how many degrees you have. It's what you can do. So that had a big impact on me. What that says is, it doesn't matter what you look like, what you talk like, where you went to school, where you came from, any of that stuff. What matters is what you're capable of.

Q. What else?

A. I was not a good student. I took what they call today a gap year, but back then it was called "finding yourself." I did one of those, and I finally found my way into a two-year college. I went from an underperformer to a solid performer, with a little inspiration from some professors. That had a profound effect on me, to realize how much raw talent there is out there for us to exploit, leverage, take advantage of, and how much talent there is that people can give that organizations don't mine, they don't harvest, they don't get the best of, because of structure, because of strategy, because of rules.

Q. So how do you break through?

A. I once sat through a three-day training session in our company, and this was for new managers, very capable people who were ready for a big step up. I counted, over three days, 68 things that we told them they needed to do to be successful, everything from how you coach and mentor, your annual reviews, filling out these forms, all this stuff.

And I got up to close the session, and I'm thinking about how it isn't possible for these people to remember all this. So I said there are three things that matter. The first is competence — just being good at what you do, whatever it is, and focusing on the job you have, not on the job you think you want to have. The second one is confidence. People want to know what you think. So you have to have enough desirable self-confidence to articulate a point of view. The third thing is caring. Nothing today is about one individual. This is all about the team, and in the end, this is about giving a damn about your customers, your company, the people around you, and recognizing that the people around you are the ones who make you look good.

When young people are looking for clarity — this is a huge, complex global company, and they wonder how to navigate their way through it — I just tell them that.

Q. Talk about the challenge of running a big global company in this tough economy.

A. We operate the company so that we keep one foot in today and one foot in tomorrow, regardless of what's going on. In an economy like this, everyone wants to look at their shoes. You can't. We've got to be doing as many things about tomorrow as we are today. We operate with a philosophy that says, never be afraid to change, even when we're at the top of our game.

In our company, usually in the summer, people ask me, "When are you going on vacation?" Because when I come back from a week's vacation, they know I've had time to think and reflect and have been strategizing about changes and it could be anything.

Q. Does that usually happen?

A. Happens every time. People even joke about it a little bit. Even my outside board members say, "When are you taking the vacation, Bill?" This year, in the middle of tough economic times for everybody, we built a human capital strategy for the future, we refreshed our corporate-wide strategy, and I moved my leadership people around into different positions and promoted some new people into leadership roles to infuse energy.

All of this is about energizing people, giving them broader scope and new experiences. This obviously helps build durability in terms of people being able to have multiple jobs, and it's an important part of succession planning, getting the athletes the experience they need in different spaces.

So just when you think all the cylinders are clicking and everything's right, that's the time you have to change, because that's the world we live in now. If you rest, it will cost you, because global competitiveness is here to stay, and it's not about the traditional competitors anymore. It's about new and emerging competitors that you've never heard of, and you just have to get your mind around the new normal, as they call it.

Q. Can you elaborate on why you shift people around?

A. If you look at why people in general leave companies, they often leave because they get bored. And high-performance people are learners by nature. And as long as they're learning, they'll stay where they are. When they start to think about leaving, when they start to respond to a headhunter's call, is when they haven't been learning.

On my leadership team, I have 15 bona fide C.E.O.'s. These people are capable of running big companies. But as long as they're learning and engaging and on a mission, they don't need to be the C.E.O. They just need to be part of the ecosystem that leads the company.

Q. What other basic messages do you have for all your employees?

A. One of our other principles is that people who are successful are the ones who ask for help. It sounds simple, but to get an organization to believe that asking for help is a sign of strength, and not weakness, is a huge thing.

Q. You have to make sure people aren't going to worry they might be criticized for asking.

A. You want to challenge people to get them to raise their game, as opposed to criticizing them, which makes them raise their defenses. It's like learning. With a motivated learner, you can work wonders. In institutions, it's the same thing. Are there companies with the will and resolve to change — that's the equivalent of a motivated learner. Or are there companies that are just sort of stuck where they are, and they like the status quo? In the end, that's the difference between winners and losers in corporate America and around the world. That's the contrast. So, the question is, how do you get motivated learners? So, I bring it back to me, and how did I become a motivated learner? Somebody inspired me.

Q. Was there anything that surprised you about the top job?

A. The amount of responsibility you carry around on your back is unbelievable. It's not like you're a martyr — it just comes with the territory. There's something going on around the globe in our place 24/7, and the sense of responsibility you feel for all those people and their families is profound.

I like taking the responsibility, but I had no idea about the spiritual part. The spiritual obligation to the lives of 177,000 people is a big deal. I'm a guy who had trouble being responsible for his own life in the early days, and now I've got 177,000 people that look up to me. That took a little getting used to.

Q. How has your leadership style evolved?

A. I used to be an orchestrator from behind the scenes. I could make stuff happen, but I never wanted to be on point. I could connect dots. I could catalyze activity. I could get other people to do things without being in the front. I sort of engineered it from the back.

Q. And you preferred it that way?

A. At the time I was comfortable with it because I was never comfortable with the spotlight. I took great pleasure and pride in seeing things get done that I knew I had made happen, and when it came time to taking bows, I didn't do the bow-taking part. I felt good about myself for that because it's just sort of where I came from. Now I lead a lot more from the front. I have a better appreciation of what people are expecting of me and how people are counting on me.

Q. How have you adjusted your leadership style based on feedback you've received?

A. I needed to beef up my operator skills because I'm an instinctive and intuitive guy. I listen, I synthesize, I process, I make judgments. There's another school of thought — that's analytics, and I needed to turn the dial a little more toward analytics and a little away from seat-of-the-pants. I didn't have to turn it a ton, but I have. I have purposely tried to get better grounding in the analytics behind the decision-making and used that to check to see if there was a huge disconnect between what my instinct told me and what the analytics told me.

Q. Let's talk about hiring. How do you do it?

A. It's one of our core competencies at Accenture. We get two million C.V.'s a year and ultimately we hire between 40,000 and 60,000 people.

I always say, in simple terms, we need people who are analytical, and have common sense, good judgment and the ability to get along with other people, because we're in a people business.

We're taking a more scientific approach to how we recruit. We do something called "critical behavior interviewing." It's based on the premise that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. Essentially what we're looking for is, have you faced any adversity and what did you do about it? We also know the profile of successful Accenture people, and how do we learn from the people we have who have stayed, learned, grown and become great leaders, and how do we push that back into the recruiting process to find the best matches for Accenture?

Q. That's what it comes down to?

A. If you get down to it, it's what have you learned, what have you demonstrated, what behaviors do you have? Have you shown intuition? Have you shown the ability to synthesize and act? Have you shown the ability to step up and make a choice? How have you dealt with the hand in front of you, played it out?

I was recruiting at Babson College. This was in 1991. The last recruit of the day — I get this résumé. I get the blue sheet attached to it, which is the form I'm supposed to fill out with all this stuff and his résumé attached to the top. His résumé is very light — no clubs, no sports, no nothing. Babson, 3.2. Studied finance. Work experience: Sam's Diner, references on request.

It's the last one of the day, and I've seen all these people come through strutting their stuff and they've got their portfolios and semester studying abroad. Here comes this guy. He sits. His name is Sam, and I say: "Sam, let me just ask you. What else were you doing while you were here?" He says: "Well, Sam's Diner. That's our family business, and I leave on Friday after classes, and I go and work till closing. I work all day Saturday till closing, and then I work Sunday until I close, and then I drive back to Babson." I wrote, "Hire him," on the blue sheet.

He's still with us, because he had character. He faced a set of challenges. He figured out how to do both.

Q. So what's that quality you just described?

A. It's work ethic. You could see the guy had charted a path for himself to make it work with the situation he had. He didn't ask for any help. He wasn't victimized by the thing. He just said, "That's my dad's business, and I work there." Confident. Proud.

What critical behavior interviewing does is get at people's character, and you get to see where work fits in their value system, where pride fits in their value system, where making hard decisions or sacrificing fits in their value system. I mean, you sacrifice and you're a victim, or you sacrifice because it's the right thing to do and you have pride in it. Huge difference. Simple thing. Huge difference.

www.nytimes.com

Constitution of the People's Republic of China - Guiding Political Ideologies Mao Zedong: Mao Zedong Thought Deng Xiaoping: Deng Xiaoping Theory Jiang Zemin: Three Represents Hu Jintao: Harmonious society

Constitution of the People's Republic of China

0.01 sec.

People's Republic of China
This article is part of the series: Politics of the People's Republic of China
Constitution Past constitutions: 1954 1975 1978
Guiding Political Ideologies Mao Zedong: Mao Zedong Thought Deng Xiaoping: Deng Xiaoping Theory Jiang Zemin: Three Represents Hu Jintao: Harmonious society
President: Hu Jintao National People's Congress    Standing Committee
Premier: Wen Jiabao State Council People's Liberation Army Central Military Commission
Law of the PRC Supreme People's Court Supreme People's Procuratorate
Political Parties CPPCC Communist Party of China    Constitution    General Secretary    National Congress    Central Committee    Secretariat    Politburo       Standing Committee
Elections    Political divisions    Human rights    Foreign relations    Foreign aid
See also    Politics of Hong Kong    Politics of Macau    Politics of the Republic of China
Other countries :commons:Atlas of the People's Republic of China	Atlas   Template:Politics of the People's Republic of China	view • Template talk:Politics of the People's Republic of China	talk • [ edit]

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese: 中华人民共和国宪法; Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Xiànfǎ) is the highest law within the People's Republic of China. The current version was adopted by the National People's Congress on December 4, 1982 with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. Three previous state constitutions--those of 1954, 1975, and 1978--were superseded in turn. The Constitution has five sections: the preamble, general principles, the fundamental rights and duties of citizens, the structure of the state, and the national flag and emblems of state.

1982 document

The 1982 document reflects Deng Xiaoping's determination to lay a lasting institutional foundation for domestic stability and modernization. The new State Constitution provides a legal basis for the broad changes in China's social and economic institutions and significantly revises government structure and procedures.

There have been four major revisions by the National People's Congress (NPC) to the 1982 Constitution.

Much of the PRC Constitution is modelled after the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union, but there are some significant differences. For example, while the Soviet constitution contains an explicit right of secession, the Chinese constitution explicitly forbids secession. While the Soviet constitution formally creates a federal system, the Chinese constitution formally creates a unitary multi-national state.

The 1982 State Constitution is a lengthy, hybrid document with 138 articles. Large sections were adapted directly from the 1978 constitution, but many of its changes derive from the 1954 constitution. Specifically, the new Constitution deemphasizes class struggle and places top priority on development and on incorporating the contributions and interests of nonparty groups that can play a central role in modernization.

Article 1 of the State Constitution describes China as "a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship" meaning that the system is based on an alliance of the working classes--in communist terminology, the workers and peasants--and is led by the Communist Party, the vanguard of the working class. Elsewhere, the Constitution provides for a renewed and vital role for the groups that make up that basic alliance--the CPPCC, democratic parties, and mass organizations. The 1982 Constitution expunges almost all of the rhetoric associated with the Cultural Revolution incorporated in the 1978 version. In fact, the Constitution omits all references to the Cultural Revolution and restates Mao Zedong's contributions in accordance with a major historical reassessment produced in June 1981 at the Sixth Plenum of the Eleventh Central Committee, the "Resolution on Some Historical Issues of the Party since the Founding of the People's Republic."

There also is emphasis throughout the 1982 State Constitution on socialist law as a regulator of political behavior. Thus, the rights and obligations of citizens are set out in detail far exceeding that provided in the 1978 constitution. Probably because of the excesses that filled the years of the Cultural Revolution, the 1982 Constitution gives even greater attention to clarifying citizens' "fundamental rights and duties" than the 1954 constitution did, like the right to vote and to run for election begins at the age of eighteen except for those disenfranchised by law. The Constitution also guarantees the freedom of religious worship as well as the "freedom not to believe in any religion" and affirms that "religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination."

Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration." In the 1978 constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were the right to strike and the "four big rights," often called the "four bigs": to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters. In February 1980, following the Democracy Wall period, the four bigs were abolished in response to a party decision ratified by the National People's Congress. The right to strike was also dropped from the 1982 Constitution. The widespread expression of the four big rights during the student protests of late 1986 elicited the regime's strong censure because of their illegality. The official response cited Article 53 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that citizens must abide by the law and observe labor discipline and public order. Besides being illegal, practicing the four big rights offered the possibility of straying into criticism of the Communist Party of China, which was in fact what appeared in student wall posters. In a new era that strove for political stability and economic development, party leaders considered the four big rights politically destabilizing. Except for the ostentatious six democratic parties, Chinese citizens are prohibited from forming parties.

Among the political rights granted by the constitution, all Chinese citizens have rights to elect and be elected, as opposed to parallel clauses in the US constitution which forbids foreign-borns to be elected president among other limitations. However since direct election is confined to the village level, the electorial rights of the people are questioned by many critics. Other scholars argue that this is a form of Electoral College system. According to the later promulgated election law, rural residents have only 1/4 vote power of townsmen. As Chinese citizens are categorized into rural resident and town resident, and the constitution has no stipulation of freedom of transference, those rural residents are restricted by the Hukou (registered permanent residence) and have less rights on politics, economy and education. This problem has largely been addressed with various and ongoing reforms of hukou in 2007.

The 1982 State Constitution is also more specific about the responsibilities and functions of offices and organs in the state structure. There are clear admonitions against familiar Chinese practices that the reformers have labeled abuses, such as concentrating power in the hands of a few leaders and permitting lifelong tenure in leadership positions. On the other hand, the constitution strongly oppose the western system of separation of powers by executive, legislature and judicial. It stipulates the NPC as the highest organ of state authority power, under which the State Council, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate shall be elected and responsible for the NPC.

In addition, the 1982 Constitution provides an extensive legal framework for the liberalizing economic policies of the 1980s. It allows the collective economic sector not owned by the state a broader role and provides for limited private economic activity. Members of the expanded rural collectives have the right "to farm private plots, engage in household sideline production, and raise privately owned livestock." The primary emphasis is given to expanding the national economy, which is to be accomplished by balancing centralized economic planning with supplementary regulation by the market.

Another key difference between the 1978 and 1982 state constitutions is the latter's approach to outside help for the modernization program. Whereas the 1978 constitution stressed "self-reliance" in modernization efforts, the 1982 document provides the constitutional basis for the considerable body of laws passed by the NPC in subsequent years permitting and encouraging extensive foreign participation in all aspects of the economy. In addition, the 1982 document reflects the more flexible and less ideological orientation of foreign policy since 1978. Such phrases as "proletarian internationalism" and "social imperialism" have been dropped.

2004 Amendments

The Constitution was amended on March 14, 2004 to include guarantees regarding private property ("legally obtained private property of the citizens shall not be violated,") and human rights ("the State respects and protects human rights.") This was argued by the government to be progress for Chinese democracy and a sign from CPC that they recognised the need for change, because the booming Chinese economy had created a new class of rich and middle class, who wanted protection of their own property.

Wen Jiabao was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "These amendments of the Chinese constitution are of great importance to the development of China." "We will make serious efforts to carry them out in practice." [1] But subsequently there was no clear indication that the changes were leading to increased protection for Chinese citizens in terms of human rights or property rights. Chinese people continue to be arrested for trying to challenge government decisions (whether they are legal or not), even when using the law itself. The censure of the media is still in place, as can be seen by the closure of out-spoken publications, or re-staffing to remove editors and journalists who have annoyed officials, such as was the case with the Freezing Point magazine.

Constitutional Enforcement

There is no special organization established for the enforcement of constitution. Although in the constitution it stipulates that the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee have the power to review whether laws or activities violate the constitution.

Furthermore, under the legal system of the People's Republic of China, courts do not have the general power of judicial review and cannot invalidate a statute on the grounds that it violates constitution. Nonetheless, since 2002, there has been a special committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress which has reviewed laws and regulations for constitutionality. Although this committee has not yet explicitly ruled that a law or regulation is unconstitutional, in one case, after the subsequent media outcry over the death of Sun Zhigang, the State Council was forced to rescind regulations allowing police to detain persons without residency permits after the NPCSC made it clear that it would rule such regulations unconstitutional if they were not rescinded.

See also

• Law of the People's Republic of China

External links

• English version of the Constitution of People's Republic of China (Adopted in 1982)
• Government of China website in English: The Constitution