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.

Power of Supply and Demand

"Self-interrogation" Dave Derrett
(used by permission)

If we know anything at all about economics we know that one of the basic ideas is that of supply and demand.  The central tenets of supply and demand feature in the discussion of climate change and what to do about it.  As we all know, the basic driver of climate change is carbon emissions, arising from our demand for and supply of – energy.

It stands to reason then that many climate change activists and others focus on energy when thinking about how to tackle climate change.  As I listen to many of these activists and others the discussion often leads to alternative, sustainable, non-fossil based energy sources.  Solar, wind, tidal and other sustainable sources are mentioned.  Switching from fossil-based sources for electricity production is definitely needed and is needed quickly.

However, such discussion and the solutions suggested, focus only on one side of the supply/demand curves so favoured by economists.  Encouraging and advocating for sustainable sources looks only at the supply side.

The problem however, is mainly one of demand.

Electricity Consumption Trends

A little over forty years ago, in 1972, the global electricity consumption per capita was 1,273 kWh per year.  In just 40 years that consumption per person had more than doubled, to 3,065 kWh in 2012.  That is per person; considering that the Earth’s population increased in that same period, it becomes obvious that our electricity consumption rapidly increased.  That’s demand, and that is where the problem really lies.

Demand is far from equal too.  Like many things in the world, the consumption of electricity is highly inequitable.  The rich nations demand and consume at a much faster rate than do poorer nations.  For example, in 2012, the per capita electricity consumption in the US was 12,954 kWh.  Australia was not far behind consuming 10,398 kWh per person. 

The Least Developed Nations¹, however, consumed just 184 kWh per person.  China saw the largest growth in consumption, up a staggering 2100% in the 40 years.  At 3,475 kWh per capita, it is still consuming less than half that of the rich nations of the world though.

The problem is demand.

That demand doesn’t look like abating either.  The World Energy Council forecasts electricity demand to more than double through to the year 2050.²  If that demand is going to be met by renewable sources, then those sources will have to increase supply by more than ten times their present rate.³  Possible?  Yes!  Likely? …Mmmm…

The problem is not going to be solved on the supply side.

Consumptive Lifestyles

Attempting to solve issues such as climate change by addressing the supply side is easy in a psychological sense.  All that needs to happen is for our brightest brains to invent better, sustainable, renewable technologies, and make them affordable for people.  That, psychologically, is easy to deal with as the solutions are external to us. 

The demand side is not so easy though, is it?  To address demand we must necessarily look at ourselves.  We must look at our lifestyles, we must address our basic desires, fears, wants and needs.  We must question our consumptive lifestyles, especially those of us who live in western-styled, rich nations.  Consumption and electricity use go hand-in-hand.  The following graph charts electricity use per capita versus GDP per capita by country.⁴  As can easily be seen, there is a clear correlation between the two.  The higher the GDP is then the greater the electricity use (or vice versa).  It is also clear that the western-styled, rich nations (those marked with red squares) are more likely to have a greater electricity use.

It is abundantly clear.  Electricity demand is where the problem lies.  It is also where the solutions must come from.  We can continue to seek out sustainable, renewable sources – and we must – but until we take seriously the demand for electricity then we are not going to solve the problem.  That means that we must understand and address our consumption. 

Those of us in the western-styled, rich nations have to face it.  We have to get real.  We have to interrogate ourselves.  We have to make some psychologically difficult choices.  We have to not just stop consuming more, we have to reduce our consuming.  We have to do it NOW.  The longer we put it off, the harder it will be to solve the problems before the problems do it for us.

1. The Least Developed Nations are 48 countries with a combined population of over 850 million.
2. World Energy Scenarios: Composing energy futures to 2050, World Energy Council, 2013.
3. The US Energy Information Administration estimates that 21% of electricity generation was from renewable sources in 2011.

4. Although there is discussions and research being undertaken to devise a better measure of consumption, GDP remains the most accessible and global such measure.

Group Dynamics Needs

Why do groups form?  For some it may be that there is a need for something to be done and the best way of doing so is with others.  Some people may join  groups in order to learn something.  Whatever the reason, how do groups remain together?  How do they ensure that they don’t internally combust, fall apart, and the members go their separate ways, embittered, embarrassed or exhausted.

An understanding of group dynamics can help us to hold groups together.  It is important to understand the three major actions of groups.  The first two are primary, and the third emerges as a means to balance these two.

Task Needs

Groups come together to perform tasks.  They form in order to achieve something, to reach a goal, to create something, or to learn something.

Personal Needs

Groups are composed of individuals, each with their own particular personality, ideas, experience, knowledge, and therefore needs.  Personal needs could vary from a need to belong through to a need to contribute.  Maybe there are needs to be creative, or perhaps to impart a skill.

Maintenance Needs

Holding a group together requires maintaining the balance between task needs and personal needs.  The analogy of a see-saw is helpful.  Task are at one end of the see-saw, personal needs at the other.  The fulcrum that balances these two is the Maintenance Needs of the group.  (see diag)

It is the task of the facilitator of the group to ensure that the maintenance needs of the group are met, so that the tasks of the group are kept in mind and are continually worked on, yet also ensuring that personal needs are met.  If individual personal needs are not met, then people may lose interest and drop out of the group, perhaps taking with them some important skill, knowledge or idea.  It has been said that people join a learning group in order to learn something, but that what keeps them there are the relationships that they make.  This is no different for a group that has a more external, or social change purpose.

So, what are the Maintenance Needs and how does the facilitator ensure that they are met?

Maintenance Needs and Functions

A few of the things that a facilitator needs to be aware of in order to maintain the balance between task and personal needs include:

• Ensuring that all participants are encouraged to participate.  This means that the facilitator must be encouraging, have an open and receptive manner and is aware of equity issues.
• Is able to maintain an open and full communication between participants, including the ability to draw out silent members.  This means being comfortable with different styles of groups working together (including individual time, pairs, small groups, interactive movement, as well as the more traditional full group discussion).
• Being open to the full range of human expression, including feelings, emotions and intuition, as well as intellectual expression.  This may mean specifically allowing for or even promoting the expression of heart and gut “thoughts.”
• Helping to relieve tension by recognising the importance of humour (although ensuring that the humour is not of a disrespectful nature).  The use of ice-breakers and other forms of “time out” activities can be helpful, not just to relief tension, but also to reduce the possibility of boredom or inattention.
• Reminding the group of their goals and direction.  Being able to summarise where a group has got to and then suggesting the next steps is a useful function of a facilitator. 
• Being able to work with disagreement or differences of opinion in a way that respects the individual needs of all yet also recognises the task needs of the group.  An understanding of techniques for doing this are useful skills for facilitators to have in their “tool box.”
• Testing for consensus or agreements.  This helps groups to recognise when and where progress is being made.  If agreements are not reached then it may be necessary to restate the problem. issue, or concern that the group are working on.  It is then important to summarise the steps that have been made along the way, thus being able to clarify sticking points.
• Most of all, the primary function of a facilitator is to listen.  Listen for new ideas, areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, to those who are silent.  Listen for signs of restlessness, misunderstandings, or for discussion dominators.

These are just very very brief explanations of some of the roles of a facilitator who is trying to maintain the balance between task and personal needs.  Each of these roles can be expanded on and the reader is encouraged to discover some of the excellent books or on-line resources on facilitation tat are now available.

Trickle Down, Torrent Up

Source: polyp.org.uk

Half the world’s people own $1.76 trillion.  That’s a lot of money – $176 followed by ten zeros.  It is hard to imagine that amount of money isn’t it?  But 62 people in the world can, because these 62 people own the same amount: $1.76 trillion.

Yes, according to a recent Oxfam report,¹ just 62 people own as much wealth as half the world’s population.

Let’s try to put that into perspective and see if we can imagine the numbers involved.  On average each of those 62 people has a wealth of about the same as 58 million people.  Imagine that: one person having as much wealth as the populations of Australia and Canada combined!

Or, put another way.  Those 62 people could travel together on two buses with room to spare.  To meet the travel requirements of the 3.6 billion people making up half the world’s population would require a fleet of 90 million buses!

Furthermore, and more alarming is the statistic that the world’s richest 1% have an accumulated wealth greater than that of the other 99%.  Although this statistic is quoted by Oxfam, the statistic itself comes from none other than Credit-Suisse, one of the world’s top ten investment banks.

But it’s okay some say because the rich are undertaking benevolent and worthy philanthropic projects.  Yes, that is true; we have recently witnessed the rise in philanthropic giving on behalf of the rich.  The number of philanthropic foundations has increased, as has the amount being given by them.

That is good, isn’t it?  Not really, according to Linsey McGoey at the University of Essex who points out that:

“Philanthropy may be growing, but only in the context of rampant inequality.”

McGoey is quoted in another recent report, this one published by the Global Policy Forum.²  This report questions the role of large-scale philanthropic organisations and the rich individuals who run them.  The authors claim that these wealthy philanthropists:

• maintain undue influence over the agendas of global institutions,
• apply quick-fix, technological solutions instead of looking at longer term and structural issues,
• weaken democracies,
• are unreliable for ongoing financing, and
• lack monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

The report analyses the activities of two of the world’s biggest philanthropic foundations: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.  It focuses on two sectors: health and agriculture.  In both cases, and in each sector, it finds these philanthropies wanting.

Unhealthy Philanthropy

In the health sector the authors found that the involvement of these foundations undermined a more holistic approach to health and stifled scientific creativity.  There was an unhealthy revolving door between the Gates Foundation and pharmaceutical companies, noting that many of the Foundation’s staff had held positions at some of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, e.g. Merck, Novartis, Bayer, Pfizer and others.

The report sums up it’s analysis of the role of wealthy philanthropists in the health sector by saying that:

“…too often the underlying more complex socio-economic causes of health problems and the need to strengthen public health systems have remained neglected.”

Damaging Farming

In agriculture too, wealthy philanthropists have been distorting and damaging infrastructure and local systems.  The main problem, according to the authors of this report, is that the philanthropists believe that the problem of hunger is caused by lack of technology, knowledge, and access to markets.  The money and influence of the philanthropists is directed in this top-down way with little or no support being given to local, small-scale farming.

The authors note that the structural issues underlying the problems of hunger are not recognised and certainly not addressed by the wealthy philanthropists.  These criticisms are endorsed by La Via Campesina, the global peasants, small farmers, fisherfolk, and indigenous peoples organisation.  In 2010 La Via Campesina criticised the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for purchasing 500,000 shares in Monsanto.  Dena Hoff, the North American coordinator of La Via Campesina said at the time:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust’s purchase of Monsanto shares indicates that the Gates Foundation’s interest in promoting the company’s seed is less about philanthropy than about profit-making. The Foundation is helping to open new markets for Monsanto, which is already the largest seed company in the world.”

Not just the largest seed company in the world but also one of the world’s must unethical companies, according to Covalence, the Swiss-based organisation monitoring the world’s companies on Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG), Corporate Social Responsibility, ethics and sustainability, using online media monitoring, natural language processing and human analysis.  In fact, Covalence ranked Monsanto the most unethical company in it’s 2015 survey, claiming it to be:

 “… leads the world in the production of genetically-engineered seed, (and) has been subject to myriad criticisms.  Among them: the company is accused of frequently and unfairly suing small farmers for patent infringement.”

No wonder La Via Campesina are critical of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The trickle down theory of economics hasn’t ever worked, and it still isn’t.  In recent decades the trickle has dried up, and it has become an upward flowing torrent.  Claims of tempering this inequality with philanthropic “generosity” are extremely dubious.  We must beware of such beneficent sounding programmes.  They can often be doing more harm than good.

1. Oxfam Briefing Paper, An Economy for the 1%, January 2016

2. Global Policy Forum is an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the United Nations and scrutinises global policymaking. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law.

Enlightened Leadership

Ashoka the Great

Enlightened leadership.  Is there such a thing?  Can we point to any of today's world leaders and say “there is an enlightened leader?”  Sadly, with one or two exceptions, the answer appears to be “no.”

Yet, it is possible.  Every so often throughout history an “enlightened” leader arises or emerges.  In our recent history we can think of leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi or Vaclav Havel.

Further back in history there have been other examples.  Here is a brief story of just one, from well over two thousand years ago.

Ashoka Maurya was born in 304 BCE in India and inherited the leadership of the Maurya Dynasty which at that time included most of the Indian subcontinent as well as parts of what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.  Initially Ashoka ruled with an iron fist becoming known as Ashoka the Fierce.  However, Ashoka had a change of heart.  There are a number of stories as to what exactly prompted his conversion, with the most common one being that after a particularly brutal battle Ashoka was surveying the battleground and noticed a Buddhist monk serenely walking along a nearby road.  The story goes that seeing the serenity of the monk alongside the carnage and suffering that Ashoka had caused moved him to sorrow and remorse.  He was moved to exclaim

“What have I done? If this is a victory, what's a defeat then?“

From that day forth Ashoka converted to Buddhism and became one of the most enlightened leaders the world has ever seen.  Amongst his edicts and accomplishments the following are remarkable (remember, this is over 2200 years ago!):

• encouragement of nonviolence in personal life and statehood,
• respect for all religions and cultures,
• he had wells dug and trees planted alongside roads in order to give shelter and respite to all,
• banned the killing of “all four-footed creatures that are neither useful nor edible,” as well as numerous birds, fish and bulls,¹
• got rid of the “Royal Hunt,”
• provided for medical care for humans and animals as of right,
• treated animals as citizens with rights,
• brought fairness to the justice system, often pardoning prisoners,
• banned slavery,
• stopped deforestation
• advocated gender equality in education and religion,
• assisted students, poor, orphans and the elderly,
• advocated and promoted generosity.

Ashoka was the first leader of an empire, dynasty or nation to implement many of these reforms and innovations.  It’s remarkable really isn’t it, when we look at some of these and then look at some of the practises that still exist in the world today – the 21st century!

Enlightened Leadership?  Yes, it is possible.  Ashoka the Great (as he became known) is but one example from history.

1. e.g. parrots, pigeons, geese, ducks, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, tortoises, porcupines, squirrels, and others.

Permanent (in)Security

Source: polyp.org.uk

The United Nations has a Security Council made up of ten non-permanent member states and five permanent member states: USA, Russia, France, China and the UK.  The primary purpose of this body is the maintenance of international peace and security.  So, why is it that over 70% of the world’s arms trade come from these five permanent members? (1) Furthermore, the US alone is responsible for almost 1/3rd of the world’s arms trade and Russia around 1/4.  Why is it, then, that the permanent members of the world body responsible for peace are also the nations who stand to benefit economically the most from the continuation of warfare?

This trade is not insignificant at more than $400 billion.²  When we consider that this amount of money is thirteen times the amount required to halve the number of people without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation,³ it is readily apparent that our priorities are skewed.

The two largest profiteers from arms manufacturing (Lockhead Martin and Boeing – both based in the US) had sales of over $30 billion each in 2013.  Six of the ten largest arms manufacturers are based in the US, with combined sales of $106.7 billion in 2013.  That is a huge figure – greater than the GDP of more than half the nations of the world.

Where do these arms sales end up?  Developing nations are the recipients of 84% of arms deals⁴ - the very nations whose people are those without access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.  This fact beggars two questions.  First, why do these nations buy arms?  Second, why do the rich nations, mostly in the form of transnational corporations sell armaments to them?

The answer to these two questions comes down to just two P words: Profit and Power.  The two are inextricably linked.  Profit = Power = Profit = Power… ad nauseum.  We all know it.  We’ve all seen it.  We have seen it in numerous guises over the years.  Western nations selling off their dangerous, toxic and murderous commodities to those in developing nations.  We’ve seen it with powdered milk products for babies.⁵  We’ve seen it in harmful insecticides and pesticide sales to India and African nations.

The arms trade is a nasty, vicious and utterly immoral trade.  And, it is those very nations who have the responsibility for peace and security who are the major suppliers, and who gain to benefit most from the selling of death and destruction.  Certainly, there are those who are prepared to buy and they have to take their own responsibility for that.  But, we who live in the richer nations have a responsibility to call our governments and businesses to task. 

The arms trade, like the slave trade earlier, is an economic activity that should be relegated to the history books and not part of our future stories.

1. SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Yearbook 2015.
2. This figure does not include China’s state-owned arms manufacturers. 
3. Costing MDG Target 10 on Water Supply and Sanitation, World Water Council, March 2006. p vi
4. Richard Grimmett & Paul Kerr, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2004-11, Congressional Research Service, August 24, 2012
5. In the 1970s, following a damning issue of New Internationalist, a boycott of Nestle was launched because of it’s aggressive marketing of baby formula within developing nations.  The campaign is coordinated now by International Nestlé Boycott Committee.

Let's Play a Game

At this time of year, in western-styled nations, it is a time of holidays, a time for families to get together.  Often that means getting out a board game and playing it for an hour or two, maybe after the evening meal.  What are we likely to pull out?  Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit or Scattergories?  Maybe something even older: dominoes, chess, ludo, snakes and ladders.

Have you ever noticed that all of these are competitively based?  There are winners and losers.  Often, it’s an all-or-nothing outcome.

There are some games, however, that teach us more collaborative approaches to life and relationships. 

One such that I recently had a chance to try out was GROK it!¹  Rather than a single game though, GROK it! is a kit of 150 games and exercises all designed to teach the skills and techniques of nonviolent communication.  But wait, there’s more.  Included in the kit are manuals, resources, background notes, inspirational stories and poems.  Enough to keep an entire family occupied for many holiday evenings.

I recently took along a couple of the games and exercises to a group of men who mentor other men.²  We had time to play just one of the games that explore our feelings.  We learnt about feelings, false feelings, and the difference between feelings and perceptions.  The men were keen to further explore the exercises contained in the kit, suggesting to me that the exercises are engaging, fun, and have something to teach us all.

Nonviolent communication (NVC) was developed by Marshall Rosenberg in the 1960s whilst working with civil rights activists.  The NVC model of communication has four components:  observations, needs, feelings, and requests.

• Observations are what we see, hear, touch, taste etc., and are to be distinguished from judgements or evaluations. 
• NVC holds that all our actions are intended to get our needs met, and that conflict occurs not because of differing needs, but because of differing strategies used to get our needs met. 
• Our feelings arise from either having our needs met, or having them not met.  It is important to be able to recognise that feelings and thoughts are completely different and that some things that we believe to be feelings turn out to be thoughts in disguise – what the GROK it! designers call false feelings. 
• Finally, requests are not the same as demands meaning that the requestor must be open to getting “no” for an answer, and then not use force in order to have the “request” met.

Jean Morrison and Christine King, the creators of GROK it! are NVA trainers and have developed these exercises and games as tools in their training.  They have now made these exercises, games, tools, handouts, worksheets, and resources available, at minimal cost, to those who wish to gain a better understanding and expertise in nonviolent communication.  They have done a wonderful job in putting this kit together.  I would thoroughly recommend obtaining this kit for your family, your workplace, or as a resource kit for those working in social change organisations.

1. Grok is a word taken from Robert Heinlein’s science-fiction book Stranger in a Strange Land and means “to drink” or, in this setting “to take it all in.”

2. MENtors for Men is a voluntary group, based in Coffs Harbour (Australia) who offer their time as mentors for other men.