One Small Step – Book Review

One Small Step¹ is a book about running, isn’t it? So, how does it come to be featured on this blogsite? Well, that’s because it is a book about community.

One Small Step, authored by the founder of parkrun, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, is a book about the building of community using running as the building blocks. It is also, and a bonus, the autobiography of a remarkable man.

The book is almost 300 pages long, yet it is not until you get almost to the 200^th page when Paul writes of the first ever parkrun (at the time known as the Bushy Park Time Trial). Paul spends most of the first 200 pages writing of his life and experiences growing up in the apartheid era in South Africa.

In many ways it is possible to read Paul’s childhood and teenage years as difficult, even sad and depressing years. His mother was mostly absent, both physically and emotionally. His father was no better. He and his brother and sister spent much of their educational years in boarding schools or orphanages. During much of this time Paul was bullied. Running allowed Paul to find some relief from these times. He grew to enjoy the activity.

These experiences, as an isolated youth, and growing up in the apartheid system, left Paul with at least two guiding values that he later brought to parkrun – fairness and inclusivity.

That first time trial in Bushy Park (in south-west London) had thirteen participants and five volunteers (including Paul). Twenty-one years later this small beginning has grown to more than 2,000 events in twenty-three countries. A total of almost 400,000 attend these weekly events with 10 million parkrunners being registered worldwide. Each parkrun is attended by volunteers who marshal, give out finishing tokens, record times, and administer the background practicalities. Each week, almost 50,000 people globally take on one or other of these roles.

Paul’s two values alluded to above (fairness and inclusivity) are reflected in the events. Participation in a parkrun (no matter where in the world) is free and no-one is turned away. Many who turn up walk the 5km route, whilst others participate by being wheeled in their pram. Although each participant is provided with a time, the accent is on participation rather than competition. The smiles and laughter before and following events attest to this being a community event, rather than a sporting event.

One Small Step is highly readable and engaging. Paul’s background and life experiences are honestly, and almost painfully, revealed. By giving the reader this insight into his life, Paul allows the reader to appreciate how this worldwide phenomenon came about, and also why it enjoys so many enthusiastic participants each week.

At the end of the book Paul relates an endearing story of being a parkwalker (one who walks as a volunteer toward the rear of the field to accompany others) and his engagement with a 5-year-old girl and her grandmother. It was the girl’s first ever parkrun. At the end of the 5km the grandmother said to Paul, ‘Thank you, from all of us.’

Paul’s reply was, ‘It’s been my pleasure. I enjoyed every step of the way.’

The reader is left in no doubt that Paul wasn’t referring to just that parkrun on that day.

Notes:

1. Paul Sinton-Hewitt, One Small Step: The definitive account of a run that became a global movement, MacMillan, London, 2025

Simply Start With People

Community Development has a tradition of starting where the people are.  Lao Tzu said it some 2,000 years ago:

“Go to the people. Live with them. Learn from them. Love them. Start with what they know. Build with what they have. But with the best leaders, when the work is done, the task accomplished, the people will
say 'We have done this ourselves.”

Many have followed his advice and have stated similar concepts over and over.  The great American radical educator, Myles Horton, recognised that

“you can’t want to change society if you don’t love people, there’s no point in it.” 

All too often as I look around at social service agencies I see references to: outcomes, KPIs, targets, goals, and perhaps worst of all, clients.  It is as if the purpose of community is not people at all, but recipients of services – clients.

Its back-to-front.  When people are listened to, when people are trusted, when people are respected, then some creative, sometimes amazing, things can happen.  When they are not, it is just the same, tired old programs that are placed in front of them, rather like limp cabbage on a dinner plate.

Start with people.  That should be the mantra of all community development workers, social service providers, and social justice advocates.  What’s more – its simple.  There is no need to make things complicated.  There is no need for jargon.  There is no need for projecting into the future and devising spreadsheets with rows and columns of what is to be achieved or what has been achieved.

Just – go to the people, as Lao Tzu said.

The simplicity of this suggests to me that the most important skills that a community development worker, social justice advocate, or any social service provider can acquire are the skills of:

• Listening with an openness that does not impose one’s own beliefs or judgements.
• Empathising with the emotional content of what the other is saying.
• Showing respect and trust.
• Being patient with ourselves so that full stories can be explained and fully heard.
• Recognising our own thoughts, judgements, feelings, and belief systems.  Then getting out of our own way.

Simple really.  Start with people.

There is a famous, and oft quoted axiom in the land of my birth – Aotearoa (New Zealand).  It comes from the indigenous people of that land, the Māori.

He aha te mea nui?  He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
What is the most important thing?  It is people, it is people, it is people.

So true, so simple.

Paddling Towards Social Change

Those of us working in community development, social justice, or environmental work often have a vision that we strive towards.  We have goals, objectives, outcomes that we wish to achieve.  It is a wonderful vision of the future.  Let’s not get attached to it though.

When we become attached to our goals, objectives, and outcomes we miss the opportunities that exist in the present moment.  We can also become critical and judgemental of those who do not share our vision.  Furthermore, when our goals seem to get no closer we can become despondent.  We then beat ourselves up and tell ourselves we have to work harder, become more committed.  If we do that for too long we may eventually find ourselves in the classic social change activists nightmare – burn out. We have burnt ourselves out.  We question not only our goals, but our selves as well.  We ask “what is the point?”

What has happened?  What became of our idealism?  Where are our “dreams of youth”? 

The problem is often one of attachment.  We can envision the future and then we attach our purpose and our self-identity to achieving that vision.  That is a trap.

To counter-act this trap we need to discover non-attachment.  Before proceeding, let me be clear that non-attachment is not the same thing as detachment.  Detachment is a non-feeling, dispassionate, somewhat heartless, non-caring state.  Detachment is often a closing in, a removal from the world and from feeling.  Non-attachment, however, is spacious and opens up to possibilities.  Non-attachment remains passionate, yet without imposing expectations on oneself or upon the outcome.  Non-attachment says, “wow, isn’t that a marvellous vision, let’s see what happens if we take a step towards it, and if the vision changes then I’ll go with that.”

When we approach our visions and goals with non-attachment we find ourselves opening up to all sorts of possibilities and opportunities.  We notice that there are many people with creative ideas that we have never thought of before.  Using a metaphor of a kayaker may help to explain this concept.

Kayaking Down River

When I was younger I participated a few times in an iconic multi-sport race in New Zealand called the “Coast-to-Coast.”  This race included a 67km kayak section through a gorge with rapids, whirlpools, and eddies along the way.  When I got in my kayak at the start of this leg my goal was to get to the end, 67km away, in the safest and quickest way possible.

If I had been attached to the goal (in this case, a bridge across the river 67km away) then I quite possibly may never have got there.  I had to focus on the here and the now.  I had to concentrate on my paddling technique and my body posture.  I had to watch out for rocks, rapids, eddies.  I had to keep my kayak in the flow of the river.  I also needed to be aware of other kayakers around me, making sure that I gave them space and that my paddling was not disrupted.  Coming to rapids I had to concentrate on my technique even more so, perhaps even upping the tempo to keep me in the flow and not get dashed against the rocks or turned upside down.

With non-attachment to the end goal I was able to give my attention to what was happening right now.  I was then able to proceed towards my goal.

Possibilities and Opportunities

The world is full possibilities and opportunities.  If we become too attached to our goals then we can miss these.  We need to learn to hold our visions, our goals, our objectives with a lightness that allows us to let them go if we find more useful or healthy opportunities.

When we do that we will discover that what we truly want is right here, right now.  Our vision for the future exists right now, it exists with whomsoever we are relating with now, it exists in our present time relationships.  It even exists, right now, with those whom we thought we were in conflict with. 


When we hold our goals and objectives lightly, we also lighten, we become more at ease with ourselves.  And, when we do that, we find that we are less antagonistic towards others, we are more willing to forgive, we are open to learning from each and every person that we meet.

Climbing a Group Process Ladder

Anyone who gets into community development, social justice or other community work will end up working in groups.  An understanding of group dynamics and group processes can be beneficial.  There are many models that attempt to describe or explain the stages of a group coming together (being born), living together and ending.  One of the earliest, and still useful, is Cog’s Ladder – a model proposed by George O. Charrier (hence the c.o.g.) in 1972 when he was an employee of Proctor and Gamble.

Cog’s Ladder has five stages:

1. Polite stage
2. Why We’re Here stage
3. Power stage
4. Cooperation stage
5. Esprit stage

Let’s look at each of these stages briefly.

Polite Stage

This initial stage is marked by cordiality, simplicity, lack of controversy, and (of course) politeness.  It is a time for group members to acquaint themselves with one another, or perhaps to become re-acquainted.  Most individuals in the group are keen to be liked and not cause waves.  Self-disclosure is kept to a minimum and ideas and actions are simple ones.

Why We’re Here Stage

In this stage people begin to leave aside their concerns about being liked to focus more on the purpose of the group.  There can be much discussion about group goals, agendas, and processes.  If a facilitator or leader is not already present, one may emerge at this stage who will set agendas and the topics for meeting and discussion.  It may also be a stage in which cliques begin to form, although often not rigidly so.  On a personal level, it is the stage at which people will begin to feel that they “fit in” and that the group is one they wish to remain part of.  This stage can see some members drift away.

Power Stage

This is the stage that requires patience and tolerance to get through.  It is the stage at which some group members may attempt to convince, or coerce, others into adopting their solution or way ahead.  There are bids for control of leadership of the group, with others forming alliances around the various power-players.  Many may go silent in this stage, wishing to stay out of the power games.  Conflict in the group rises and decisions taken in this stage may not be optimal.  The unity of the group that seemed to be emerging in the earlier stages dissipates and there is little sense of group identity.  For a facilitator of group processes this is possibly the stage at which your knowledge, skills and wisdom will be at their most useful.  Using this model can help a facilitator remain focused, at ease, and not get caught in a “what the hell is going on” merry-go-round.  it is not a time for a facilitator to step in and save a group.  Doing so could well back-fire.   The needs of the group at this stage are wide and include individual and group needs.  Individually, people may be in need of reassurance, acceptance, being heard.  The group may be in need of reframing its purpose, defining its structure, sharing of skills. 

Cooperation Stage

If a group can enter into a problem-solving mindset towards the end of the previous stage then it will be ready and willing to the cooperative stage.  In this stage, the conflicts of the previous stage are seen as opportunities to learn and to improve rather than as win-lose power battles.  A sense of group identity emerges, and leadership begins to be shared.  Solutions and decisions are better developed in this stage.  Solutions posed in the power stage that were initially rejected or resisted, may re-surface in this stage and be creatively explored.  Hallmarks of this stage are greater levels of listening and accepting of differences.  Once a group gets to this stage it is difficult for new members to fit in and be accepted.  To enable new members to fit in a group may need to go back to an earlier stage and repeat those stages.  Induction and/or mentoring practices may be of assistance in enabling new members to join without the need for the group to go back to earlier stages. 

Esprit Stage

The French word esprit means the quality of being lively, vivacious or witty.  Such liveliness certainly captures the sense of this stage well.  It is a stage at which groups feel as if they could do anything – almost take-on-the-world.  Not all groups reach this stage.  In order to get here they usually must pass through the previous four, including the power stage.  Once at this stage, the sense of cohesion is at a peak with contributions from members building on the contributions of others.  Creativity is high and the group often achieves more than it ever expected to.  Loyalty levels are high and the sense of satisfaction and achievement for individual members can be significant.  It is almost impossible for new members to join at this stage without the group having to go back to an earlier stage. 

Do you recognise these stages?  Have you experienced a group, or groups, that have attained the Esprit Stage?  For a facilitator of group processes and understanding of these stages can be useful.  Remember, however, that this is only a model of group process.  It works well – unless it doesn’t.  There will be times when it doesn’t.  That is the magic of human group processes.  None are ever the same, and none can ever be predicted in advance.  Where this model is useful is in allowing us to become comfortable with a process, including during the times of conflict, turmoil and disruption, knowing that we are all on the same journey.


Play with the ideas, and if you find them useful, it may even be worth outlining this model to a newly formed group early in its life so that group members are also more comfortable with the journey.

Creating Us (Book Review)

In a world in which the neo-liberal globalising project robs us of our creativity and our souls, a book titled Creating Us is worth checking out.  So it is with Peter Westoby’s latest offering.  The sub-title - community work with soul - suggests that this is a book worth more than checking out – it is a book worth relishing.

For decades, centuries even, community workers and social justice activists have sought a better world.  We have sought that world in the mountains of idealism and the peaks of activism.  Community work has been redolent with visions, goals – an ever upward striving.

Westoby, in this book, encourages us to divert our gaze (at least occasionally) from the mountain tops towards the valleys and dales where soul resides.  He succinctly notes that “soulful energy within community work practice is … oriented towards gravity and earth, thereby implying a depth perspective.” 

Why is it important, or useful, for community workers to descend towards soul?  Westoby offers a number of answers to this question.

Soul allows us to experience life in greater quality.  Much of our socialised life is quantity driven – the need to get results and to make things happen.  Soul, Westoby claims, wants us to let go and “invites an embracing of community work as a responsive dance.”  Perhaps tragically, community workers can become so locked into making things happen that we forget the meaning of what we are doing.  That is what, he says, is what bringing a soulful approach to community work can guard against.

Looking around the world we can see the dominance of ego.  The ego, Westoby suggests, “wants control, domination and an unified story.”  Soul however, is more comfortable with “multiplicity and complexity,” and seeks these out, if we let it.  Increasingly it is becoming obvious that we must recognise and understand the realities of complexity.  Soul allows us to do this.

The reader of this short book (it is only 140 A5 pages long) will not be disappointed by Westoby’s more detailed musings on these and other answers to the question as to the importance or usefulness of soul in community work.

It is foremostly, a book of reflections.  It is a soulful book.  It is a enchanting book.  Westoby colours in theoretical outlines with stories from his own practice and pertinent quotes from soul thinkers – e.g. Rabindranath Tagore, James Hillman, Mary Watkins, and Thomas Moore.  Adding to the colour and poetic quality of the book are ten delightful Leunig cartoons.¹

For those of us seeking a soulful approach to community work, social justice advocacy, or anyone desiring a better world, Creating Us is an excellent place to begin that journey, or indeed, be reminded of that journey if one has already begun.

To watch a 13 minute clip of Peter Westoby discussing the concept of soul in community work click here.

Notes:

1. Michael Leunig is an Australian cartoonist known for his wonderful, and sometimes cynical, yet always whimsical, commentaries on life and the human condition.

OPPORTUNITIES EMERGING: Social Change in a Complex World (Book)

My book, OPPORTUNITIES EMERGING: Social Change in a  Complex World is now available to purchase online.  For a limited period there is a 20% discount as an opening special.  In the Preface I make mention of who might find this book useful.  This is an excerpt from that Preface.

The people I most expect to read this book are those who in some ways want to change the world or at least a tiny corner of it. Perhaps you are fearful of the effects of climate change and have become disturbed by the endless outpourings of carbon emissions into our atmosphere. Perhaps you are concerned about the number of people attempting to escape the horrible destruction of war in their homelands. Maybe you are angry about the exploitation of peasant farmers in India or Africa and the uninformed way in which western consumers are complicit in that exploitation.

Maybe your concerns are closer to home. Perhaps you have witnessed or experienced the horrors of domestic violence and want to ease the burden of victims or find ways to stop the endless cycle of abuse. Perhaps you are concerned that your children have nowhere to play and that businesses and huge corporations are encroaching upon playgrounds and open spaces in your neighbourhood. Maybe you want to bring back the neighbourliness and friendliness that has been exorcised from your local community.

Perhaps your concerns are for the non-human species living on our planet. Perhaps you want to save the orangutans, whales or tigers from extinction, or help preserve a patch of native bush that is the habitat of many species of insects, birds and fish.

Whatever your concerns, you will find that there are others who share them. There will also be those with contrary concerns, perhaps even antagonistic. How do you go about resolving these concerns? How do you work with those who agree with you? Importantly too, how do you work with those who disagree with you? How do you obtain answers when you don’t even know the right questions to ask?

This book may help you.

At present the book is only available via this link.  Later it will be available through the more commonly known web-based booksellers.  The opening special will be available for only a few weeks, so get in now at the discounted price.

I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/bruce-meder/opportunities-emerging-social-change-in-a-complex-world/paperback/product-23127543.html

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.

Changing the World One Coffee at a Time

How do you change the world?  There are many emergencies that face us.  Whether the emergency that concerns you is a global one (climate change, refugees, war, famine etc), a national one (the crime rate, domestic violence, teenage suicide etc) or focused at a local level (green space for children to play in, urban development etc) then I suggest we all have a cup of coffee.

But this is not just any coffee.  Coffee here is a simple acronym that helps us think about how we undertake change in a complex, chaotic world.  COFFEE stands for: Creative Opportunities Flow From Encouraging Encounters.  Let’s tease out each of these words a little:

Creative.  To paraphrase Einstein, we cannot solve the world’s emergencies with the type of thinking that built them.  We will need our collective, diverse creative talents.  Creativity implies being open to new and unexpected thoughts, ideas and intuitions.  It is also worth noting that the idea of left brain – right brain is a myth; so we can all be creative.  The creativity we need is not of a technological nature either.  We need a creativity of spirit, a creativity of consciousness.  We need soul-centred and eco-centred creativity.

Opportunities.  The word derives from old Latin: ob = towards, and portus = harbour.  So, opportunity represents movement towards a favourable place.  It means seeking, being inquisitive and curious.  It means not accepting the status quo.  We can find opportunity in many guises, even in adversity.

Flow.  “Go with the flow” is a common phrase and here it has a similar sense.  Why battle the current?  Why not, as many Eastern martial arts practitioners advise, use the energy that exists.  It does not mean that we are always heading towards our goal, occasionally the flow may become an eddy, a whirlpool or cataracts.  As any kayaker knows, fighting against these flows will often end in disaster.  Going with the flow means staying in the now, the present.  However, it does not imply a non-thinking, laissez-faire, laid-back approach.  It is active.  Much like the kayaker, who knows that to stay in the flow they must keep paddling, making sure that the kayak does not get swept against the rocks or flipped upside-down by a standing wave.
  
From.  What we do emerges from our encounters.  Our actions are not pre-determined or planned by a far-away authority and then dictated to us.  Change starts with and flows from us, and it flows from the present; we are not dictated by the future.  This means that we must be wary of the cult of expertness.  Certainly listen to and use the knowledge of experts, but when it comes to decision-making, we all have a role to play.

Encouraging.  Who operates better when praised, acknowledged or congratulated?  Most of us think and create at a higher level when we are encouraged. This means that we are encouraged not just in our successes but also in our failures or mistakes.  There are many skills and techniques involved in being an encouraging person: creative listening, empathy, being present, building trust, speaking thoughtfully, appropriate use of humour, offering food.

Encounters.  In a world of complexity we need to embrace our diversity of experience, knowledge, skills, and wisdom.  This means we must encounter one another.  We must join in respectful dialogue, in circle discussion.  There are a myriad techniques for encouraging encounters (e.g. World Café, Appreciative Enquiry, Open Space Technology, Future Search, Citizen Juries ….)  Furthermore, our encounters are ones in which power shifts from the top to the bottom, from the centre to the margins, from hierarchies to interconnected networks.

Although I’ve just thrown out some thoughts about each of these six words, the power of the acronym is in its whole.  It tells us that if we create open, and caring spaces (Encouraging Encounters) then the solutions (Creative Opportunities) to the many emergencies we face are able to emerge (Flow From).

Thus, if we are going to overcome the emergencies that face us, we are going to have to embrace complexity, chaos and emergence.  We are going to have to meet one another, discover each other’s skills, share our collective wisdom.  Mostly, we are going to have to talk with one another (including strangers) over COFFEE.

You’ll notice that this acronym says nothing about applied techniques,  nor does it offer a step-by-step process.  Instead, it talks about a way of thinking, a mindset if you like.  This is deliberate.  In my professional work I have not presented solutions; rather I have sought to create spaces within which people can discover their own solutions.  I’m not about to change that here.  But I do have a challenge for you.  That is this: how can COFFEE assist in your own work for social justice and sustainability?

This acronym is at the heart of a book soon to be published.  OPPORTUNITIES EMERGING: Social Change in a Complex World goes into greater depth on each of the words of the acronym, as well as looking at the overall meaning of the acronym.  The book also provides a context within which complexity can be readily understood so that those of us dealing with complexity are better equipped to understand its nuances.  Check out the facebook page here.

What If Things Don't Work Out For The Good?

Those of us who work in the fields of community development, social justice, or environmental
advocacy do so because we want to change the world.  We want to change it for the better.  We want to get rid of inequality.  We want to rid the world of oppression.  We want to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

We want to act for good.

All actions, however, have unpredictable or uncertain outcomes.  We can never be sure of what is going to happen.

“Hang on,” I hear from various quarters, “we do know what will happen – we’ll bring about a better world.”

Therein lies our delusion.  Western notions of linearity, of cause-and-effect, of predictable outcomes, give rise to delusions of permanence and security.

Ever since the Age of Enlightenment (or Reason) we have come to believe that the world and everything in it is permanent.  Even change is permanent in the sense that change happens in a predictable, understandable, consistent, and controllable manner.  We have come to view change like a train moving along a railway track.  When the train comes to a junction we can flip the switch one way or another.  Flip it one way and the train continues along in the one direction.  Flip it another way and the train changes tracks and moves off in a different direction.  Our scientific approach was based on this assumption.  Eventually our cultural and social understandings took up this assumption also.  This consistent permanence provided us with the security of surety and certainty.

But, it is a myth; it is an unfounded assumption; it is a delusion.

The world does not work this way.  The train may end up as a wreck.  Indigenous cultures and eastern philosophies have known this for millennia.  Western science has come to realise this delusion over the past century or so, especially with the development of quantum physics, meteorology, and systems, chaos, and complexity theories.

Socially however, we have been slow to catch on.  We still tend to think that if we act for good then good will happen.  What if it doesn’t?  What if unwelcome, or harmful, outcomes arise because of our actions?

What do we do then?  Do we become despondent; do we collapse in despair; do we give up and withdraw?

No!  We continue to act, but accept that our actions may or may not have the outcomes we would like.  Alan Clements¹puts it well when he says,

“We must live with the anxiety of an unpredictable world, where the unthinkable often happens.”

We know that the world needs to change.  We know that there is injustice and oppression in the world.  We know that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.  We know that species are becoming extinct because of our actions.  We know that war forces families and whole communities to become refugees.  We know it must change.

So, notwithstanding that we know it must change, and we know that outcomes are unpredictable, we continue to act.

One person who knew that we must continue to act for good, no matter the outcomes, was Vaclav Havel, the last president of Czechoslovakia and then the first president of the Czech Republic.  Havel was a vocal critic of the communist regime, an advocate of direct democracy, an environmentalist and humanitarian as well as being a poet, philosopher and writer.  He was jailed numerous times by the secret police, before finally leading his country to a new phase.  In one of his books, he declared that,²

“Hope, in the deep and meaningful sense … is an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.”

The key, then, to finding the justification for our action is in the act itself and not become attached to the outcome.  We learn to accept.  Acceptance in this sense means that we must transcend our ego.  We must go beyond an egocentric thinking that says “I can control the future.”  Another poet, T S Eliot, alluded to this letting go of attachment in his poem East Coker:³

“For us, there is only the trying.  The rest is not our business.”

Notes:
1. Alan Clements, Instinct For Freedom; finding liberation through living, Hodder, 2003
2. Vaclav Havel, Disturbing The Peace, Vintage Books, New York, first English edition 1990.

3. T S Eliot, East Coker (second poem in Four Quartets), first published 1940.

My Participation In Groups (An Exercise)

It is almost a truism to say that no community development work, nor any social justice advocacy works without there being at least one group.  By now the famous quote of Margaret Mead’s exemplifying this is well known:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

Humans are gregarious creatures and the way that we express our humanity and our wish for betterment is often through interaction and communion with others.  It would seem important then, for us to understand how we work in groups, both individually and collectively.  Group Dynamics its called.  Here is a simple exercise¹ designed to enable us to work out how we participate and what we need from a group in order to optimise our participation.

Materials:  Not much really, just some large sheets of paper, some pens, markers or pencils.

The Process:

1. Participants take a large sheet of paper each along with something (pen etc) to write with.  The facilitator asks people to spend whatever length of time is needed (10-30 mins) to list down on one half of the sheet how they think they participate in the group.  It may be worth giving some examples (eg questioner, big-picture contributor, humorist, quiet thinker, pessimist, recorder).
2. On the other half of the sheet participants are asked to make a list of those things that they need from or in the group in order for them to participate effectively and creatively.  Again, some examples may be given (eg time breaks, fun, food, sense of achievement, learning, respect).
3. When people have completed their lists, ask them to  consider their lists and decide the most important items from each list.
4. Each participant then spends 2-3 minutes sharing with everyone else the things they consider important from their lists.  They do this without comment from the rest of the group.  The listeners should use this time to practise deep listening.
5. Once everyone has shared their lists the facilitator asks the group to think of how the various needs within the group can best be met.  The facilitator should allow for plenty of discussion here with the eventual goal of the group coming to an agreement on what can be tried within the group.  Arriving at this goal should not be rushed however, as it is the discussion and sharing of ideas here that is of importance, rather than the final outcome.
6. Once agreement has been reached, the facilitator can lead the group in a discussion about the processes, roles and functions that were displayed within the exercise itself.

Notes for the Facilitator:

It is important to keep a positive tone to this exercise and to dissuade participants from accusing or suggesting that others in the group are responsible for their irritations in the group.  Reminding everyone that everyone is there for similar reasons (something that is to be achieved, learned, or researched), and that individuals operate, usually, from the best they know.


1. This exercise is adapted from Resource Manual for a Living Revolution, Coover et al., New Society Press, Philadelphia, 1977

Compassion: Innate Or Not?

Source: Hartwig HKD

In last week’s blog I suggested that gratitude has an ally – compassion.  In an earlier blog I contended that compassion is one (of three) essential values for a community development worker.

A number of social change mechanisms (notably Nonviolent Communication) assume, when no violence is present in our hearts, that compassion is a natural state.  This assumption is challenged often by many (especially economists) who contend that our base nature is competitive, nasty, and self-serving.  Which is it?  Are we naturally compassionate, or are we naturally selfish?

Before proceeding, it is worth defining what compassion is.  With the work passion being held within it, there is a temptation to think that compassion is about acting with a strong or intense desire, ie. with passion.  Passion has indeed come to mean a strong, intense desire, but the root of the word is a little different.  Passion derives from the Latin word pati meaning to suffer.  When the Latin word com (meaning together) is added we discover that compassion means “to suffer together.”  From this shared suffering we act to alleviate that suffering.

Recognising the pain and suffering of another human being is, in part, one of the evolutionary instincts that has enabled humans to survive and flourish in the world.  Far from the Social Darwinian assertion of the “survival of the fittest” espoused by apologists for neoliberalism and military interventions, Darwin actually claimed that

“… communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.”¹

Research over the past few decades strongly suggests that our brains are wired for compassion.  Dacher Keltner asserts that compassion is

“… an innate human response embedded into the folds of our brain.”²

Psychology, almost since it’s inception tended to focus on the “negative” aspects of the brain.  The more “positive” aspects of our thoughts, emotions and feelings (e.g. happiness, empathy, gratitude, and compassion) have only more recently received attention from the psychology or neurosciences fields.  Dacher Keltner is one such psychologist who studies these “positive” aspects.  In his paper, The Compassionate Instinct, Keltner notes that

“Recent neuroscience studies suggest that positive emotions are less heritable – that is, less determined by our DNA – than negative emotions.  Other studies indicate that the brain structures involved in positive emotions like compassion are more ‘plastic’ – subject to changes brought about by environmental input.”

This is important, because it notes that compassion is something that we can cultivate, something that we can enhance.

Hence, compassion is something that we evolved, and by doing so, enabled us to evolve.  Without compassion, we human beings, may not be here at all.

But What Of Those Who Are Not Compassionate?

Debates about compassion can lead us into the age-old argument about good and evil.  But what of those like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, or Pol Pot ask those who dispute the innateness of compassion.  They showed no sense of compassion. 

How could we describe such examples?  The term “psychopath” comes to mind.  Perhaps, as Charles Eisenstein, notes “psychopath becomes the scientifically sanctioned term for wicked person.” 
Psychopathy has the advantage of having been studied longer than have many of the “positive” aspects of the brain mentioned above. 

Some recent research³ on psychopaths, whilst acknowledging that psychopaths often do not act in a compassionate manner, notes that psychopaths do have “empathy” (closely related to compassion) but that the switch in their brain is set to the “off” position.  (For most people “on” is the default position for the compassion switch in the brain.)  However, it is possible for psychopaths to have this switched to “on.”

This research suggests that the notion that there are some who are not capable of showing compassion, and are out-and-out evil doers, is a baseless assumption.

Innate Or Not? 

Innate or not, the research suggests strongly that compassion can be enhanced, developed, cultivated.  For some, it seems, compassion may possibly even be “switched on.”  If, as Keltner attests, compassion is one of the aspects of the brain that is highly plastic, then cultivating it is indeed possible and highly desirable.

Aside from the research about the evolutionary benefits of compassion there has been considerable research into how compassion enhances our well-being.  Studies have linked compassion to greater happiness, lower levels of depression and anxiety, lower cellular inflammation (linked to cancer), and greater self-esteem.  One study suggested that compassion increases our sense of connection with others and hence leads to a 50% increased chance of longevity.

Innate or not, it certainly seems advisable to cultivate our compassion.  Keltner advises forms of meditation, derived mainly from Buddhist practices.  The exact form seems to be irrelevant, the meditation itself is what is important.

Buddhism does seem to be a useful source to tap into, as compassion is strongly emphasised in that tradition.  One of the timeless maxims of Buddhism is the following:

“For the bird of enlightenment to fly, it must have two wings: the wing of wisdom and the wing of compassion.”

Noting the connection to our individual well-being, the Dalai Lama counsels that

“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion.  If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”

In our current world compassion is of greater need than perhaps it ever has been.  In our community development work, or our social justice advocacy it is our compassion that will have the greatest benefit.  Compassion is also the greatest gift that we can help bring about within the communities or society in which we work.

Note.  I thoroughly recommend watching Dacher Keltner's TedX talk on compassion.

1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter IV
2. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct, accessed 7 March 2016.
3. Harma Meffert, Valeria Gazzola, Johan A. den Boer, Arnold A. J. Bartels, Christian Keysers, Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy, in Brain: The Journal of Neurology, July 2013

Struggling and Fighting

Source: FreeImages.com/Paul Griffiths

Social justice is a struggle against oppression.  Social justice is a struggle against racism, sexism and numerous other cases of prejudiced use of power.  Social justice is a fight for liberation, for freedom, and for equity.

Community development too, is a fight.  It is a fight for the rights of local communities to make decisions about what affects them.

Struggle!  Fight!  But is it really so?  Struggling and fighting are mechanics of organising and acting from the 20th century.

Struggling against something, or fighting for something suggest that the "something" is external to us.  We are either moving away from something, or moving towards something.

The underlying premise of this approach to social justice and community development is that of control.  The premise says that somebody or something has control.  It says that we can take control over the outcomes of the actions we take.

This premise is rooted in the Cartesian¹ worldview - a view in which the laws of nature (including those of human nature) can be discovered, manipulated and used to plan, with certainty, the future.  It is a mechanistic worldview. 

A Different Paradigm

The new and growing sciences of Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory are showing that the predictability and certainty of the Cartesian worldview cannot be maintained.  None of us have any control over the ways of the world.  As individuals we have no control over climate change.  We have no control over social inequality.  We don’t even have control over how we get through our day.  We cannot predict with any certainty whether we will even get through the day.

There are two simple reasons that we do not have control.  Interconnection and complexity.  Some eastern and indigenous traditions of thought have known this for centuries and have lived their lives by the simple truths contained within.  In western thought we are only just re-discovering the truths of interconnection and complexity. 

Because of interconnection and complexity, the actions that I take where I am have an influence on future events, but then so too do the actions of hundreds and thousands of other people.  Not only do we as humans influence future events, so too do the myriad of other sentient beings upon the Earth.  So too does the fall of the rain, the ebbing and flowing of the tides, the blowing of winds or the movement of the earth below our feet.

Nor is there a final outcome.  All outcomes are nothing but a moment in the ever-changing, ever-evolving, ever-emergent phenomenal world.  None of us can say that we are responsible for a definite outcome.  None of us can take credit.  None of us is responsible.  We are part of a system that is co-dependent, chaotic and emergent.

What Role Then?

If struggling and fighting is of little use, then what should we do in the face of injustice, inequity, environmental degradation, or oppression?  An understanding of of interconnection and complexity helps to answer this.  If everything is connected and complexity reigns, then that suggests that at the heart of the dynamics of change are relationships.  The manner in which we come together, work together, and play together is as important, possibly moreso, than the work we do or the games we play.

As much as we need to develop and nourish our relationships we must also seek out our personal intentions.  What are our intentions for each relationship?  Are our intentions helpful?  Are they unhelpful?  For our helpful intentions, are our behaviours and actions in harmony with those intentions?

The keys then are not so much what we are struggling against, or what we are fighting for.  The keys are between us and within us.

Note:  None of the above should be read as fatalism, or as advocating inaction.  There is much more that can be written about the efficacy of collective actions within an understanding of interconnection and complexity.  Maybe a later blog will address this.

1. Cartesian derives from René Descarte, the 17th century French philosopher who inspired rationalism.  His Latin name, Renatus Cartesius, gives us the form by which the worldview (or paradigm) is known – Cartesian.  Together with Isaac Newton, Descartes formulated the mechanistic view of nature which became the paramount philosophical and scientific western paradigm for at least the next 200 years or more.

Turning Society Inside-Out

The world needs to change.  Society needs to change.  Individually, we need to change.  Many have said that we are at a cross-roads.  Either we will break-through, or we will break-down.  We have a choice.  But our choice cannot be informed by or rooted in our old ways.  We need to make new choices, create new patterns, create new ways of living and being. 

To do that means not accepting top-down solutions.  The top-down, government-knows-best approach is clearly unable to provide us with the answers, solutions and future we desire. 

That means that must turn society inside-out.  Our society has to be created by us, from the ground-up.  It has to be created locally, yet in combination with other local initiatives, rather like a massive web of inter-linking local initiatives that encompass the whole world.

Can it be done?  Yes it can. 

There are dozens of examples world-wide of communities attempting to create and design their own futures, without relying on central authority or governments.  Here are just four examples:

Demanhur

The Federation of Demanhur is an ecovillage located in Italy’s Piedmont region.  Founded in 1975 the village now houses over 800 people with Demanhurites participating in one of four levels, from permanent occupants through to those that live elsewhere but maintain a social and/or spiritual link with the village.  Houses in the village can house anywhere from 10 to 20 people, with all of them federated under the auspices of the Federation of Demanhur.

Findhorn

Perhaps the most well-known ecovillage in the world, Findhorn, in Moray, Scotland, was founded in 1962.  The community subscribes to no particular creed or doctrine, making it accessible to many who may be put off by other villages of particular faiths or doctrines.  Instead, Findhorn opens its doors to well over 5000 people every year from all over the world who come to workshops on the workings of an ecovillage.  Its prominence as a working example of what can be achieved has been recognised by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements by awarding it the UN Habitat Best Practice designation.

Findhorn’s decision-making is vastly different to that of most of the world’s parliaments, senates and congresses. 

“Decisions are made by a process of listening to or reading information about a proposal, asking questions to learn the facts, and also meditating to open a space for intuitive information to be included in the decision-making process. Sometimes silence is used to create this meditative space, called 'attuning', where each person does their best to find an inner state of mind in which goodwill is foremost and any outcome will be one which serves as the best for all. Sometimes people share their thoughts, feelings, and any other information gained from attuning, and then a vote is taken.”¹

Gaviotas

The location of Gaviotas in Los Llanos (the Plains) of Columbia and amidst the cocaine growers, guerrilla groups, and ever present military and paramilitary forces make this an unlikely setting for an ecovillage.  However, this intentional community, founded in 1971 has made some amazing technological innovations.  For instance, they developed a children's’ seesaw that provides the energy for a water pump.

The scientists and engineers drawn to the community have become proficient at developing engineering solutions specific to the local issues and environment.  When solar hot water panel manufacturers explained the costs and difficulties associated with solar technology, the inhabitants of Gaviotas came up with their own solution.  Notwithstanding the often overcast weather of the region, Gaviotas engineers came up with solutions better equipped to deal with the local conditions, and did so using cheaper, local building materials.

A further benefit of developing local solutions has been an improvement in the health of the population in the surrounding area.  Gaviotas has developed cheaper, more efficient, more ecologically sustainable water supply systems, and this has had a direct benefit in terms of supplying people with cleaner, safer water.

The Llanos area was at one stage part of the Amazon rainforest, but had become denuded of this ecological system.  More than 1.5 million trees have since been planted by the inhabitants of Gaviotas.  These trees have provided the groundcover needed to enable tropical rainforest species to regenerate in the area.

Neve Shalom

Neve Shalom (meaning Oasis of Peace) is a cooperative village established primarily to show that two peoples (in this case Israelis and Palestinians) can live side-by-side in harmony.  The brainchild of an Egyptian, Bruno Hussar, the village is midway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.  Hussar established the village as a way to promote interfaith dialogue in the war-torn area.  Administratively the village is run by a number of elected committees, with half the representatives of each committee being Israeli, the other half Palestinian.

Although the community itself is small, its reach is large.  It is estimated that since 1980 over 35,000 people have been educated there, including many of them as facilitators in non-violent conflict group encounter skills.

Where To?

Where to next?  More of these intentional, cooperative, sustainable, radically democratic ecovillages will be necessary.  We are seeing the beginnings of global shifts towards these styles of living with the emergence of movements such as Transition Towns, voluntary simplicity, permaculture and dozens of small groups of people coming together to create alternatives to the business-as-usual, growth-oriented and harmful ways of the past. 

These groups are no longer demanding leadership from above; but are intentionally building and creating, from the inside out.

1. www.finhorn.org  Frequently Asked Questions, accessed 17 November 2015

Community Development Degrees

Do you want a job in community development?  These days it is possible to get a qualification in community development.  A Masters of Community Development, even a PhD if you so desire. That’s a good thing isn’t it?  People become trained and qualified to deliver community development programmes, plans and projects.  It must be good.

Well, no, not really.  Like any upper level educational qualification it sets the haves against the have-nots.  If I have a degree in community development then that suggests I know more about the process of community development than many of those in the communities I am working with.  And that is absurd.

The very notion of community development is premised on the understanding that local communities are capable of understanding the issues that face them, of working out solutions, of discovering what skills they already have, and determining the resources they need.  Community development degrees set up an “expert” mindset that may lead some to believe that they do not have the necessary intellectual, psychological or emotional resources to become “experts” in their own community.  Once that thought takes root then a downward spiral ensues.

Of course it is highly desirable that those who choose to work in community development undergo learning and development opportunities.  But this learning should be firmly rooted in active, experiential, participatory styles based in community settings. 

One of the earlier models developed within community development settings was that of the Action-Reflection model of learning and practise.

The model simply suggests that following analysis, we act.  But that is not the end.  Action-Reflection says that after we have acted, we analyse and reflect on what happened, what the effects or outcome was.  By doing this we learn what went well, what went badly, what more we need to take into consideration.  With this new understanding it is now possible to plan our next action.  The cycle then repeats, and continues to repeat. (see diagram)

A key element of the Action-Reflection model is that of learning from experience.  The maxim of “learning from experience” is often bandied about, without too much thought.  Action-Reflection, however, notes that we do not necessarily learn anything just by having an experience.  The experience must be actively, consciously, reflected on.  It is the active questioning of the experience that allows for the learning to take place.  We must actively ask ourselves: what did we learn from this experience?

Having a degree in community development may be required by many employers, but having the ability to consciously reflect on experience, in participation with the community itself, is of far greater benefit to the community.  Ultimately it is also of greater benefit to the community development worker themselves.

Building Alliances of Mutual Aid and Respect

"Cowboys and Indians" coalition march on Washington

In today’s inter-connected and complex world it would seem that building alliances between differing issue groups would be straight forward and simple.  Alliance building is often crucial to the success of most campaigns.  But sometimes in our focus on the issue that concerns us we can neglect this aspect of community organising.  Within that last sentence lies the key to building those alliances.  What concerns each of us is what motivates us.  Extrapolating that, it becomes clear that what concerns others is what motivates them.

If in my self motivation I can seek out and find what motivates you, then together we may be able to form an alliance that fulfils each of us.  That is no less true of groups than it is of individuals.  You could say that our mutual self-interests are what builds the alliance.  It is important to note here that self-interest is not the same as selfishness.  Selfishness claims that my cause, my issue, my concern is paramount and that all other causes, issues, and concerns are not only of lesser importance, they are of no worth at all.  Self-interest on the other hand, speaks more to who I am  and what my aspirations are; to my essence.  Indeed, the word essence and interest have the same root, esse. 

Looked at this way, it is possible to discover that my self-interest and that of someone else share something – a common humanity.

Noticing this common humanity it becomes much easier to build alliances.  No concern or issue today stands alone.  All are interconnected.  All issues, and their solutions, have an impact upon other issues.  When that too, is understood, it becomes much easier to build alliances.

Easier – yes!  Doing so, however, requires intent and it requires thinking “outside the box.”  It requires each of us momentarily dispensing with our self-interest and listening to, accepting and understanding the self-interest of others.  Oftentimes that can be difficult to do when we get caught up in the issue that is of concern to us.  We see our issue as urgent, a priority, and we see our campaign building entirely from within this perspective.

We must learn to look outside our own perspective.

Two Examples

Perhaps one of the most intriguing alliances that has been built in recent years (at least in the western world) has been that of the Cowboys and Indians coalition.  Intriguing because of the nominally politically incorrect name, but also because of the historic animosity between North American native peoples and the European settlers who invaded their lands in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The two groups, as well as environmental organisations, came together to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline¹ that threatens both the Cowboys and the Indians.  The ranchers and farmers are opposed to the pipeline because of their lands being confiscated for the building of the pipeline.  Native American organisations (such as Idle No More) claim that sacred lands are being desecrated, resulting in health and environmental perils.

This example brings together at least three concerns: loss of land/livelihood, health threats, and climate change activism.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, in Australia, the Lock the Gate coalition has also brought together often disparate groups.  Farmers,  Aboriginal owners, environmentalists and others have joined forces to stop the coal seam gas and coal mining in rural areas of Queensland and New South Wales.  The alliance has successfully overturned gas license applications as well as declaring 280 communities across Australia to be mine-free.  The importance of this alliance in the opposition to fossil fuel exploitation cannot be overstated, with Australia being one of the world’s largest exporters of coal.

These two examples are of large, nationally-based alliances; however, the need to seek alliances even at small, local level is just as important.  No issue is paramount.  No concern is of greater urgency than any other.  No cause has priority.  All are interconnected and supporters of one cause will find that by seeking alliances with other groups, that there will be common ground.  That common ground is often our common humanity.

The case for building alliances can best be summarised by an African proverb:

“If you want to go fast, go alone.  If you want to go further, go together.”

1. The XL pipeline is a 3,500 km pipeline planned to be constructed from the Alberta (Canada) tar sands drilling grounds southwards, across the USA, and terminating at the refineries in Illinois and Texas.  It is estimated to cost $7 billion and produce release approximately 1.37 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over its 50 year timeframe.

Ars Longa, Vita Brevis: art in social movements

Pablo Picasso, Guernica, 1937

Ars longa, vita brevis is one of those Latin maxims that occasionally gets quoted.  Translated as art is long, life is short, the saying is full of meaning.  One of those possible meanings is that the art we create today may survive not only our individual lifetimes, but possibly have significance well beyond the space that we inhabit.

If art is long then those of us working in community development, advocating for social justice, or seeking sustainable futures, cannot ignore its power.  Art can inspire.  Art can be a learning aid.  Art can send a message.  Art can unleash our creative talents.  Let’s use it.

The use of the arts in social change movements has a long and proud history.  One of the earliest examples of activist theatre, for instance, dates to 425 BC when Aristophanes play, Acharnians, was performed at the Athenian Lenaia.  More recently we have seen the development of guerrilla theatre, emerging especially from within the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

This highly public, in-your-face, form of theatre brought the anti-war message into the public sphere perhaps more than any other medium did.  It could not be ignored.  Guerrilla theatre struck a chord not only for those who witnessed it, but also for for those who performed – most of whom were not actors in the traditional sense.

In another art form Picasso’s Guernica is one of the most recognisable paintings in the world.  The painting is an indictment of the use of warfare in resolving differences.¹  Painting too has been taken to the streets, and street walls.  Who can dismiss the impact that Banksy has had on our awareness of consumerism, globalisation, and corporate misdeeds?

Musically there have been artists moved by a desire to create music that ranges from anti-war anthems such as Buffy Saint-Marie’s Universal Soldier through to those, like John Lennon, imagining better worlds.  More recently, the current shootings of black people in the US have spawned dozens of rap, hip-hop and other protest songs.

Literature too has been a favoured medium by many that would seek a more socially just world, or warn against techno-corporate takeovers of our lives.  Books such as 1984, Brave New World, Animal Farm, and The Dispossessed, come to mind.

But art and social commentary does not, and should not, start and stop with the professionals.  Those of us working in social movements can use art just as creatively and usefully as those for whom it is their livelihood.

Guerrilla theatre has already been alluded to, but even within our collective learning endeavours using art can have great power.  We can use paint, collage, movement, role-playing, songs, poetry, drums, clapping, chanting, or story-telling to explore our understandings and create visions of the futures that we want for ourselves and our grandchildren.

Indeed, the more we use the arts the more we tap into creative sources and intuitions that we did not know we had.  We can all be creative and artistic.  We may not pen a tune that will rise to the top of the hit parade, we may not paint a portrait that hangs in the Louvre, and we may not write the bestseller reviewed by Oprah.  But we all have some degree of creativity within us.  For some it may be a few words of a poem, for others it may a splash of colour on a poster, and others it may be a particular dance that evokes connection with the earth.

For those facilitating social action groups it is important to remember that everyone is different and that we have differing learning styles and differing ways of expressing what we feel and think.  The greater the variety of methods used the better.

Art is definitely long.  Art is also able to change the world.

1. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica hangs in Museo Reina Sofia, Madrid, Spain.  It was painted in 1937.  Widely recognised as one of the world’s most powerful and moving anti-war paintings, it is huge, measuring 3.49 metres in height and 7.76 metres in length.  Picasso is believed to have painted it in response to the bombing of Guernica, a village in the Basque region of Spain by German and Italian planes.

Communication is Precarious

Communication is a skill that is a crucial one in the community development worker’s tool kit.  By practicing effective communication the community development worker is better able to do their job, as well as providing a good role model to those around them.

Talking, speaking, hearing, listening.  What could be easier?  After all, we have grown up doing it, haven’t we.  As babies, we heard our parents, or other adults voices.  We learnt to imitate the words and then tested them out, by speaking.  Simple, piece of cake.

So, how is it that communication can be so difficult sometimes?  Why does apparently simple communication break-down?  Simply because there are at least six processes going on in the simple transaction between one person and another.  Think about it.  Before I say something to another person I must first have a thought or intuition.  Then I must put that thought into words, before finally speaking those words.

The person to whom I am speaking then goes through the opposite three stage process.  First, they must hear my words.  Then they interpret those words, give the words meaning and finally, derive a thought from that interpretation.

That’s six steps.  I am not suggesting that every communication flows in this logical step-by-step manner, nor am I suggesting that any of it is necessarily conscious.  However, each of these elements is involved in some way in my communication with one other person.

That means there are six ways in which communication can break down, can go astray and lead quickly to mis-communication.  And, that’s just with one other person!

Learning Listening and Speaking

Effective communication is something that can be learned, but rarely do we take the time to do so. 
How can we more effectively listen?  We can learn to focus on the speaker and their words by not interrupting, avoiding distractions, watching for non-verbal cues, not pre-judging, and not making assumptions.

As a speaker we can improve our communication by focussing on our internal thought processes.  One technique is to use the THINK acronym, by asking ourselves whether what we want to say is:

• Truthful
• Honest
• Inspiring
• Necessary
• Kind

Next time you find yourself in a conversation that seems to have become derailed, step back and see if you can figure out where the problem may be.  It may be in your thinking patterns, in the words you use or in the speech you have just given.  Similarly, it may be that you were distracted at a crucial time that someone was telling you something and you never heard the words, or that you interpreted their words in a different way to that in which the speaker intended. 

It may be worth talking about the mis-communication.  This time listening attentively and speaking thoughtfully.

If You Want To Change The World, Here’s 5 Books To Read

Concerned about climate change or global inequality?  Maybe you want to advocate for better youth recreation facilities in your community?  Whatever your passion; to change the world, or just your corner of it, here are five books worth reading.

If we really want to change the world then it helps to understand how it works, recognise patterns, and think about where to focus attention, and who with.  No matter whether you are a community development worker, a social justice advocate or a sustainability advocate, these five books are worth reading.   Here I have presented them in a sequence, beginning with the bigger picture and moving on to suggestions for personal and collective action.

Whether it be the entire world, the country you live in or your immediate community, you will be dealing with systems.  Fortunately, Donella Meadows has given us a very lucid and comprehensive introduction to systems thinking.  Thinking in Systems¹ provides clear examples of what systems are, how they work and what happens when you change aspects of systems.  Meadows helpfully provides a list of twelve points of leverage in a system that range from the less effective tinkering with the numbers within systems (e.g. standards) through to thinking about and changing the paradigm of the system itself.

Another systems thinker is keen to alert us to the dire need to change the systems around us.  Ervin Laszlo warns that if we fail to do so then we run the risk of breakdown and global disaster.  However, if we do so then we just might breakthrough to herald in a sustainable planet.  The thesis of his book, Chaos Point: 2012 and Beyond,² is that we are living in a very brief “chaos-window” where we have a conscious choice of which way the balance could tip.  Laszlo succinctly summarises the possibilities on either side of this chaos point.  It’s up to us to act, he says, and we must do so urgently.

What is this chaos that Laszlo refers to?  Chaos Theory has been with us for a few decades, although often misunderstood or even neglected by social change activists.  John Briggs and F David Peat seek to rectify that with a simply written exposition of the theory and lessons that can be drawn from it and applied in our work for social change.  One crucial characteristic of chaos theory is that it is not possible to accurately predict or control outcomes.  That, however, does not suggest a descent into fatalism.  Briggs and Peat ask: “What if we acted through the myriad tiny feedback loops that hold society together?  Alluding to another chaos theory characteristic,⁴ they note that “although we may not have power of the controller in the traditional sense, we all possess the ‘butterfly power’ of subtle influence.”

Exercising that subtle butterfly influence is the subject of The Power of Collective Wisdom,⁵ written by four authors from the Collective Wisdom Institute – an informal network of practitioners and scholars interested in collective wisdom.  The intent of their book is to recognise that wisdom belongs to all of us collectively, and that no single person or even group of people have complete access to that wisdom.  Indeed, the authors would contend that our traditional styles of leadership and decision-making are inadequate in a world of complexity and chaos.  The authors researched collective wisdom for nine years before publishing this book and have identified six stances needed to allow collective wisdom to emerge: 1. Deep listening, 2. Suspension of certainty, 3. Seeing whole systems/ Seeking diverse perspectives, 4. Respect for others/ Group discernment, 5. Welcoming all that is arising, and 6. Trust in the transcendent.  And, just in case you may worry about the dangers of “group think”, the authors tackle this as well.  Indeed, the subtitle of the book is “…and the trap of collective folly.”

Where Briskin et al outline the conditions for the emergence of collective wisdom, Paul Born gets down to the nitty gritty of how to bring about the conversations needed.  Community Conversations⁶ is exactly that: insights into what makes for helpful conversations (including systems thinking, bringing us full circle), how to utilise diversity and, critically, some techniques that enable all of this.  Born is also keen to encourage us towards truly collaborative conversations and efforts.  Continuing to act in silos is unhelpful and many of our traditional organisations and “…are sorely lacking in the face of personal and community problems that are multifaceted, adaptive, and interconnected.”

Five books.  Not necessary the definitive collection, and not necessarily the best in their field.  However, they do provide the basis for clear thinking about our analysis and actions, as well as the stepping stones towards further study. 

If you want to purchase any of these books, check out the links to the right of this post.

1. Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2008
2. Ervin Laszlo, Chaos Point: 2012 and Beyond. Hampton Roads, Virginia, 2010
3. John Briggs & F David Peat, Seven Life Lessons of Chaos. Harper Perennial, New York, 2000
4. The characteristic that a very small change in the initial conditions can trigger a massive difference in outcome.  Otherwise known as the Butterfly effect.
5. Alan Briskin, Sheryl Erickson, John Ott, Tom Callanan, The Power of Collective Wisdom, and the trap of collective folly.  Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 2009.
6. Paul Born, Community Conversations. BPS Books, Toronto & New York, 2012