Blue Peter wrote:But, to your substantive point, is there an argument that that's simply how we (Western civilization, for want of a better term) are?
It's not how we "are", it's the dynamic that's created by centralised Western institutions. There are many other examples of social organisation that don't reflect the same trends. For example, if you look at anthropological studies of more traditional societies you don't get the same kind of blind obedience to authority because the emphasis in social systems is for collective decision making, reflecting all views rather than the "tyranny of the majority"; however that also means that often the norms of the society are to support each other in order to avoid such divergent views emerging in the first place, so avoiding conflict before it happens.
In the West -- be it democratic, autocratic or oligarchic -- the deference to authority means that what needs to be said is rarely stated because it would offend those higher up; who of course ultimately represent you potential to advance in society. Therefore to be willing to create major change you have to have a world view or a material position that's independent of the dominant political-economy (hence why many radical figures in the past were from the aristocracy, e.g. Kropotkin, or from wealthy families, e.g. Gandhi, or had other external support, e.g. early trade union leaders like Kier Hardy).
It also means that where there is conflict between different viewpoints it's polarised between opposing camps, which of course reinforces the "group think" as a form of intellectual defence mechanism; and so any idea that there might be an different or alternative view of a problem, even within the group, is expunged because it doesn't fit in with the dominant group ideology. As we're socially cued to look for such differences in the social networks around us, in order to make sense of them and so determine our relationship to them, the media is able to amplify those conflicts and play to our innate senses of disagreement, gossip and antagonism (e.g., the Welshman who got washed up on a desert island and built two chapels... "because he didn't go to that one").
Of course, if we could work on the representational structures then the dynamics of groups would change. However, that's going to be a tall order because it isn't a just a loss of power that those in charge face -- ultimately they all have to face that fact when they retire or they end up like Mugabe; what it means is a loss of material affluence, but most importantly the deference from others that reinforces their own self-image -- we're asking them to give away their own inflated egos!
In a sense, in order to end the growth-oriented economy, we're not just asking politicians to change policy, we're asking them to change their identity and ideological outlook. No amount of wind turbines or green consumer brands are going to alter the fact that such change will only be wrought -- as outlined by the sage of "conventional wisdom", J.K. Galbraith -- in the throws of a crisis that their world view can't answer or solve; but of course, with climate change or energy depletion, by the time they admit the crisis we're already going to be fairly well screwed! How we anticipate and move on beyond this impasse is therefore all about creating parallel systems of support and exchange, and the development alternative mechanisms that can be scaled-up quickly by society so that, when the "powers that be" finally admit that they've made a balls-up, we can try and avoid some of the chaos and civil strife that will ensue.
?