How often do we hear a conversation where one person claims that personal
salvation is the road to happiness and social change, and the other suggests
that we must obtain social justice before anyone can be free? Less often than
we might think I would suggest. Mainly because those on a personal salvation
course more often than not do not interact with those seeking social justice.
Thankfully, however, this is changing, and the two ideologies are talking
together more often.
Of course, the distinction between the two approaches is an illusory one.
Both are necessary, and neither can work without the other.
Since the 1960s and 70s there has been a greater awareness growing of the
connection between our inner and outer worlds. We are understanding more and
more that everything is intimately connected with everything else. We are not
separate beings. our lives are connected with the lives of those around us, not
only those in our families or living in our street, but also those living in
other parts of the world. Furthermore, we are connected with the flora and
fauna of this planet – we are connected with the planet itself. What happens to
another happens to us. The way we treat the planet affects how the planet
treats us.
So it is with social justice and personal salvation work. They are
connected. We cannot attain personal salvation without seeking social justice.
We cannot work towards social justice without transforming ourselves.
Compassion and Empathy
When we work for social justice we often do so from a sense of compassion or
empathy with those (humans, animals, plants) who are distressed or oppressed.
When we seek personal salvation we inevitably arrive at a place of compassion
for all sentient beings. Compassion and empathy, then, may be the point at
which the two paths converge, and we see the wisdom of both approaches.
Without compassion in our social justice work we can easily perpetuate the
very structures and injustices that we are wanting to overcome. Think of what
happened following the French Revolution – we got Napoleon. Think of what
happened after the overthrow of the Tsar – we got Stalinism. More latterly we
can see similar examples in the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, and ISIS.
Ends and Means
There once was a saying that the “ends justifies the means,” fortunately now
largely discredited (at least within grass-roots social justice organisations).
The means by which we work for social justice or seek personal must be in
harmony with our ends. Joanna Macy notes that “means are ends in the making,”
and Thich Nhat Hanh advises us that “peace is every step.”
In a complex, inter-connected, world seeking personal salvation can only go
so far before we need to study and understand the roots of cultural,
psychological and historical oppression and privilege. In that same world,
working for social justice can only go so far before we are faced with the
limitations of our personal transformation. Social justice is as much a means
towards the end of personal salvation as personal salvation is the means towards
the end of social justice.
No Separation
Just as there is no completely independent and self-sufficient self, there is
no separation between working for social change and seeking personal
salvation.
If we focus our attention on systemic change at the expense of our personal
transformation then we will perpetuate the harmful relationships between each
other and the planet.
If we focus our attention on personal salvation at the expense of systemic
change then we will perpetuate our individual sense of a disconnected self.
Reflections, commentaries, critiques and ideas from 40 years experience in the fields of Community Development, Community Education and Social Justice. Useful tools and techniques that I have learnt also added occassionally.
Pages
The name of this blog, Rainbow Juice, is intentional.
The rainbow signifies unity from diversity. It is holistic. The arch suggests the idea of looking at the over-arching concepts: the big picture. To create a rainbow requires air, fire (the sun) and water (raindrops) and us to see it from the earth.
Juice suggests an extract; hence rainbow juice is extracting the elements from the rainbow, translating them and making them accessible to us. Juice also refreshes us and here it symbolises our nutritional quest for understanding, compassion and enlightenment.
The rainbow signifies unity from diversity. It is holistic. The arch suggests the idea of looking at the over-arching concepts: the big picture. To create a rainbow requires air, fire (the sun) and water (raindrops) and us to see it from the earth.
Juice suggests an extract; hence rainbow juice is extracting the elements from the rainbow, translating them and making them accessible to us. Juice also refreshes us and here it symbolises our nutritional quest for understanding, compassion and enlightenment.
Tuesday, 25 April 2017
Thursday, 20 April 2017
The Myth of Expert Decision-Making
World-wide we are less trusting of our leaders. We are voting less, we are
leaving political parties in droves. If we do not trust our leaders and
politicians to make the right decisions then where do we look for guidance,
leadership or action? More and more we are coming to realise that the ideas,
the solutions, and the actions begin with and flow from all of us, from
communities and the collective knowledge, experience, skills and wisdom that
they contain.
This approach turns on its head the classic western notion of development. The classic western approach is one in which experts enter a community or nation, assess the needs and then design a program or infrastructure to address those needs. Classically there was little consultation with the local community and even less of an attempt to involve the community in the design of any program or intervention. Often this approach led to the program eventually collapsing or the infrastructure being under-utilised. Many times this collapse could be attributed to the “experts” incorrectly identifying the needs or the problem, let alone the solution.
But, when the process begins with and flows from within communities, then the chances of correctly identifying the issues and then designing the appropriate response are greatly enhanced.
This approach emphasises that power and decision-making shift from the top to the bottom, from the centre to the margins, and from hierarchies to interconnected networks. It puts connected communities firmly in the role of decision-makers and implementers of policy.
“But what if local communities do not have the knowledge, or skills necessary?” is a common argument raised against allowing ordinary citizens, the man and woman in the street - “commoners” - to become decision-makers. This quarrel is based on a prejudice that implies that only those with expertise are in the best position to make decisions. But this is nonsense.
The Expert Myth
The “expert” may come in various guises: community health expert, education expert, city planning expert, even the community development or social justice expert. In each case, the expert may have some useful expertise to offer, but that does not make them the best decision-maker in any community setting. Indeed, an expert in a decision-making role can be disastrous.
A 2006 study found that the more power an individual has or claims to have, the more likely they are to over-value their own viewpoint and are less capable of considering another person’s perspective1.The same researcher, in 2012, noted that those with a sense of power were often over-confident in their decision-making2.
Remember too, that becoming an expert in a subject usually involves knowing more and more about a topic that is more and more specialised. In short: knowing more and more about less and less. Our world is a complex, interconnected and diverse one. We, and it, contain contradictions, anomalies, and inconsistencies. In such a world our decision-making processes must ensure that a wide variety of perspectives and ideas are taken into account. The expert has a place in that, but only one place of many.
It is of little benefit if a decision made by an expert is the right one in their view if it does not make sense to those on whom the decision is imposed.
Look around the world. Often, where we see conflict, bitterness or social isolation, we will also find that a decision has been imposed by someone (or a group) who have done so in the belief that theirs was the correct one to make. That applies just as much to a local neighbourhood as it does to international conflict.
The tower block building projects that began in the 1950s in England are a case in point. Architects and city planners in England embraced with zeal the ideas of architects such as Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius who became known for their minimalist approach. Le Corbusier’s idea was magnified from the simple stripped down villa into stack upon stack of bare, uniform multi-storied dwellings. Town planning experts and architectural experts embraced the idea with glee, but no-one bothered to ask the potential inhabitants.
Within just a few years the cracks were appearing, not only in the buildings themselves but also in the social fabric. In May 1968 Ronan Point, a 22 storey tower block in East London, partially collapsed killing 4 people and injuring 17. It wasn’t the only one.
But it was the tearing apart of social cohesion that was perhaps the biggest failing of this expert-driven approach to housing. The adults living in these towers experienced high rates of stress, mental health problems, and marriage breakdown. Their children fared no better. Tower-rise children had high rates of hyperactivity and were prone to greater levels of hostility and juvenile delinquency (even when socio-economic status was adjusted for) than that of the general population.
Even though much is known about the damage to social infrastructure that these towers create, they are still being built. There are many commentators and community workers in England who are now advocating for a return to the terraced housing style that England is so well known for.
So, beware the expert, but do not ignore the expert. They can have useful information or knowledge, but it does not make them the best decision-maker.
Notes:
1. Galinsky, Adam et al: Power and perspectives not taken, Psychological Science, 2006.
2. Galinsky, Adam et al: Power and Overconfident decision making, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Making Processes, March 2012.
This approach turns on its head the classic western notion of development. The classic western approach is one in which experts enter a community or nation, assess the needs and then design a program or infrastructure to address those needs. Classically there was little consultation with the local community and even less of an attempt to involve the community in the design of any program or intervention. Often this approach led to the program eventually collapsing or the infrastructure being under-utilised. Many times this collapse could be attributed to the “experts” incorrectly identifying the needs or the problem, let alone the solution.
But, when the process begins with and flows from within communities, then the chances of correctly identifying the issues and then designing the appropriate response are greatly enhanced.
This approach emphasises that power and decision-making shift from the top to the bottom, from the centre to the margins, and from hierarchies to interconnected networks. It puts connected communities firmly in the role of decision-makers and implementers of policy.
“But what if local communities do not have the knowledge, or skills necessary?” is a common argument raised against allowing ordinary citizens, the man and woman in the street - “commoners” - to become decision-makers. This quarrel is based on a prejudice that implies that only those with expertise are in the best position to make decisions. But this is nonsense.
The Expert Myth
The “expert” may come in various guises: community health expert, education expert, city planning expert, even the community development or social justice expert. In each case, the expert may have some useful expertise to offer, but that does not make them the best decision-maker in any community setting. Indeed, an expert in a decision-making role can be disastrous.
A 2006 study found that the more power an individual has or claims to have, the more likely they are to over-value their own viewpoint and are less capable of considering another person’s perspective1.The same researcher, in 2012, noted that those with a sense of power were often over-confident in their decision-making2.
Remember too, that becoming an expert in a subject usually involves knowing more and more about a topic that is more and more specialised. In short: knowing more and more about less and less. Our world is a complex, interconnected and diverse one. We, and it, contain contradictions, anomalies, and inconsistencies. In such a world our decision-making processes must ensure that a wide variety of perspectives and ideas are taken into account. The expert has a place in that, but only one place of many.
It is of little benefit if a decision made by an expert is the right one in their view if it does not make sense to those on whom the decision is imposed.
Look around the world. Often, where we see conflict, bitterness or social isolation, we will also find that a decision has been imposed by someone (or a group) who have done so in the belief that theirs was the correct one to make. That applies just as much to a local neighbourhood as it does to international conflict.
The tower block building projects that began in the 1950s in England are a case in point. Architects and city planners in England embraced with zeal the ideas of architects such as Le Corbusier and Walter Gropius who became known for their minimalist approach. Le Corbusier’s idea was magnified from the simple stripped down villa into stack upon stack of bare, uniform multi-storied dwellings. Town planning experts and architectural experts embraced the idea with glee, but no-one bothered to ask the potential inhabitants.
Within just a few years the cracks were appearing, not only in the buildings themselves but also in the social fabric. In May 1968 Ronan Point, a 22 storey tower block in East London, partially collapsed killing 4 people and injuring 17. It wasn’t the only one.
But it was the tearing apart of social cohesion that was perhaps the biggest failing of this expert-driven approach to housing. The adults living in these towers experienced high rates of stress, mental health problems, and marriage breakdown. Their children fared no better. Tower-rise children had high rates of hyperactivity and were prone to greater levels of hostility and juvenile delinquency (even when socio-economic status was adjusted for) than that of the general population.
Even though much is known about the damage to social infrastructure that these towers create, they are still being built. There are many commentators and community workers in England who are now advocating for a return to the terraced housing style that England is so well known for.
So, beware the expert, but do not ignore the expert. They can have useful information or knowledge, but it does not make them the best decision-maker.
Notes:
1. Galinsky, Adam et al: Power and perspectives not taken, Psychological Science, 2006.
2. Galinsky, Adam et al: Power and Overconfident decision making, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Making Processes, March 2012.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
I Knew A Race
Do you remember the children's song about the old lady who swallowed a fly? Well, here is an update on that dire warning. I call it "I Knew A Race."
I KNEW A RACE
I KNEW A RACE
I
knew a race who saddled a horse,
With
little remorse, they saddled a horse
I
don’t know why,
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race who built a cart
What
a start, to build a cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race who played with steam,
They
had a dream, to play with steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race who invented the engine,
What
a din, that infernal engine,
They
employed the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race that assembled a car,
That
belched and spewed and polluted the air, near and far
They
assembled the car to use the engine,
They
invented the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race that dug for oil
Beneath
the soil, they dug for oil,
They
burnt the oil to fuel the car
That
belched and spewed and polluted the air, near and far
They
assembled the car to use the engine,
They
employed the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race that paved the earth,
Full
of mirth, they paved the earth
They
paved the earth to carry the car,
That
belched and spewed and polluted the air, near and far
They
assembled the car to use the engine,
They
employed the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew a race that went hybrid
That’s
what they did, built a hybrid,
They
built the hybrid to replace the car,
That
belched and spewed and polluted the air, near and far
They
assembled the car to use the engine,
They
employed the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die.
I
knew race who dug for nickel
What
a pickle, when they mined for nickel
They
used the nickel to power the hybrid
They
built the hybrid to replace the car,
That
belched and spewed and polluted the air, near and far
They
assembled the car to use the engine,
They
employed the engine to replace the steam,
They
used the steam to power the cart,
They
built the cart to harness the horse
I
don’t know why
They
saddled a horse
Perhaps
they’ll die
I
knew a race and their technology,
Gadgets,
tools and machinery
Where
are they now, you ask of me,
They’re gone, extinct, you see.
Wednesday, 5 April 2017
From Conflict to Creative Collaboration (Book Review)
What would a conference, workshop, or meeting look like if the understandings
of complexity and chaos theories ruled? Perhaps they would look like the meetings Rosa Zubizarreta describes in From Conflict to Creative
Collaboration. Instead of meetings being brought to a focus point and a
decision point, such meetings would widen things and would be choice-creating.
Instead of consensus, these meetings would seek diversity.
Welcome to the world of Dynamic Facilitation. A world expertly described by Rosa Zubizarreta. Indeed her book is sub-titled A User’s Guide to Dynamic Facilitation. Rosa is the founder of Dia Praxis, a US-based consultancy working extensively with Dynamic Facilitation.
So, what is it? What is Dynamic Facilitation?
Where traditional facilitation seeks to find commonality amongst meeting participants, Dynamic Facilitation seeks to uncover the differences and the diversity. Where traditional facilitation aims to obtain consensus decisions, Dynamic Facilitation opens up an ever expanding series of choices. Where traditional facilitation manages conflict in groups, Dynamic Facilitation encourages conflict (although not one-on-one adversarial conflict). Where traditional facilitation creates and sticks to an agreed upon agenda, Dynamic Facilitation goes with whatever is arising at the moment.
It all sounds chaotic doesn’t it? it is, and that is its beauty and its strength.
The world does not work in a nice, orderly, linear manner, and nor do our thinking patterns. At times we will be solving problems and creating solutions, at other times attempting to define the problem, sometimes even when we think we have solved it. In the next moment we may be recognising the disadvantages and pitfalls of a certain solution, and then we will be seeking further information. Throw all these thinking patterns into a group setting and it becomes obvious that thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, are not necessarily as ordered as we might like them to be. The cautionary tale in all this is that when someone, or some group, attempts to constrain thinking within ordered, linear, so-called logical, patterns, then unexpected or unwanted outcomes emerge. We may find that some in the group are disgruntled, others withdrawn, some angry and disillusioned, and yet others outright saboteurs.
Dynamic Facilitation, in the manner well presented by Rosa Zubizarreta, understands and works with the non-linearity of our thinking patterns. Dynamic Facilitation says it doesn’t matter if one thought or expression doesn’t logically follow another – just get it down, record it.
All this is in keeping with emergence – the child of complexity and chaos theories. Emergence tells us that when a number of factors, players, or ideas come together then sometimes unexpected, even unexplained, outcomes can emerge. Often, these outcomes are highly creative.
Rosa Zubizarreta has written an excellent guide to Dynamic Facilitation in an easily understood manner. She has not portrayed Dynamic Facilitation as the panacea of facilitation, with a final chapter addressing some of the pitfalls and instances where Dynamic Facilitation may not be appropriate.
As a bonus there is a foreword by Peggy Holman who has written much about the power of emergence. This foreword lays out neatly what the reader can expect over the following 100 pages.
Welcome to the world of Dynamic Facilitation. A world expertly described by Rosa Zubizarreta. Indeed her book is sub-titled A User’s Guide to Dynamic Facilitation. Rosa is the founder of Dia Praxis, a US-based consultancy working extensively with Dynamic Facilitation.
So, what is it? What is Dynamic Facilitation?
Where traditional facilitation seeks to find commonality amongst meeting participants, Dynamic Facilitation seeks to uncover the differences and the diversity. Where traditional facilitation aims to obtain consensus decisions, Dynamic Facilitation opens up an ever expanding series of choices. Where traditional facilitation manages conflict in groups, Dynamic Facilitation encourages conflict (although not one-on-one adversarial conflict). Where traditional facilitation creates and sticks to an agreed upon agenda, Dynamic Facilitation goes with whatever is arising at the moment.
It all sounds chaotic doesn’t it? it is, and that is its beauty and its strength.
The world does not work in a nice, orderly, linear manner, and nor do our thinking patterns. At times we will be solving problems and creating solutions, at other times attempting to define the problem, sometimes even when we think we have solved it. In the next moment we may be recognising the disadvantages and pitfalls of a certain solution, and then we will be seeking further information. Throw all these thinking patterns into a group setting and it becomes obvious that thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, are not necessarily as ordered as we might like them to be. The cautionary tale in all this is that when someone, or some group, attempts to constrain thinking within ordered, linear, so-called logical, patterns, then unexpected or unwanted outcomes emerge. We may find that some in the group are disgruntled, others withdrawn, some angry and disillusioned, and yet others outright saboteurs.
Dynamic Facilitation, in the manner well presented by Rosa Zubizarreta, understands and works with the non-linearity of our thinking patterns. Dynamic Facilitation says it doesn’t matter if one thought or expression doesn’t logically follow another – just get it down, record it.
All this is in keeping with emergence – the child of complexity and chaos theories. Emergence tells us that when a number of factors, players, or ideas come together then sometimes unexpected, even unexplained, outcomes can emerge. Often, these outcomes are highly creative.
Rosa Zubizarreta has written an excellent guide to Dynamic Facilitation in an easily understood manner. She has not portrayed Dynamic Facilitation as the panacea of facilitation, with a final chapter addressing some of the pitfalls and instances where Dynamic Facilitation may not be appropriate.
As a bonus there is a foreword by Peggy Holman who has written much about the power of emergence. This foreword lays out neatly what the reader can expect over the following 100 pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)