Is This The Most Toxic Catchphrase In Our Culture?

www.polyp.org.uk

You may not read it very often.  It is not commonly used in everyday conversation.  But this catchphrase seems to underpin much of our cultural understandings, motivations and behaviours.  What is this catchphrase?  The survival of the fittest.  Attributed to Charles Darwin, but (as we shall see) not a phrase that Darwin introduced.

Survival of the fittest explains much of our way of life doesn’t it?  That is why it is acceptable, even expected, that some members of society aggregate to themselves the riches and positions of authority.  It explains why nations mobilise their militaries and condone sending those troops into battle.  It explains the current prevalent philosophy of global neoliberalism. 

For that is the state of human nature, or so the myth goes.  It is the fit that will survive, so we must become the fittest.  It is only natural that those who are not fit will slip to the back of the queue, fall to the bottom of the heap.  The fit are obliged to climb to the top.  Because that’s the way of the world – the survival of the fittest.

The idea that human nature is this way predates Charles Darwin by at least 200 years.  Thomas Hobbes, writing in Leviathan describes “the life of man (sic)…(as) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”   For Hobbes  it is a case of “every man is enemy to every man.”¹

The notion that human beings are base at our core has remained a common myth right through to the 20th century.  George Santayana, the Italian philosopher, proclaimed that if you “dig a little beneath the surface you’ll find a ferocious, persistent, profoundly selfish man.”² 

Freud, the granddaddy of psychology, did nothing to dispel this view.  Freud considered that “the inclination to aggression is an original, self-subsisting, instinctual disposition.”³  It is little wonder then, that with the voices of such heavy-weights of philosophy and psychology being added to the survival of the fittest catchphrase that the dark side of human nature should come to be commonly accepted as the natural state of human beings.

But it is this catchphrase – survival of the fittest – that most commonly is quoted, accepted and tacitly agreed with in our cultural realm.  But it is a myth.  It is a myth in two ways.  Myth 1.  Darwin used the phrase.  Myth 2. It is correct.  Both are myths.

Myth 1

Survival of the Fittest.  What could more succinctly sum up Charles Darwin’s thesis that this?  It is quintessentially Darwin isn’t it?  But, it was not Darwin who wrote it.  In 1866 Alfred Russel Wallace wrote to Charles Darwin suggesting that because the phrase natural selection was misunderstood that Darwin might like to adopt the phrase survival of the fittest which had been used by Herbert Spencer. Darwin accepted Wallace’s suggestion and thereafter used the term in preference to natural selection.

However, Darwin did not use the phrase in the way that it has come to be used.  There are at least two ways to define fit.  One is that it means healthy, strong, enduring.  In this sense, if one is fit then one has the capability to outrun, outjump, outdo someone who is unfit.  The second possible definition is that of fitting something within something else, much like how a jigsaw piece fits neatly and correctly into the jigsaw.  It is the second of these meanings that Darwin was alluding to when he thought of the fitness of species.

But, our culture has chosen to use the first, incorrect, meaning.  We are living with a myth.

Myth 2

The idea that, biologically, we are all just competitors for the same scrap of food, territory or power has not been without it’s critics.  Perhaps the first major rebuttal of this notion came in 1902 when Peter Kropotkin published Mutual Aid.⁴  Kropotkin studied the lives and societies of many animals in Siberia and Manchuria and concluded that “if we ask who are the fittest…we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest.”

Since Kropotkin’s time many biologists and social scientists have investigated the more cooperative, compassionate and mutually encouraging aspects of evolution and human beings.  In 2014 Stefan Klein’s book, Survival of the Nicest,⁵ was translated from the German into English.  The title of his book was a deliberate play on the survival of the fittest notion.  In the book Klein brought together an impressive array of studies, experiments and research that indicated that humans may well have survived because of our natural inclination towards cooperation, altruism, selflessness, and empathy. 

But, our culture has chosen to assume that we have survived because of competition, dominance, and hierarchies.  We are living with a myth.

Do We Think Too Much?

The survival of the fittest myth has taken hold within our culture and our psyches.  The myth has been used to justify all manners of malevolence, violence and destruction.  Hitler used it to justify his atrocities.   In Mein Kampf he writes, "existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife....where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." 

We see the myth everywhere; from Wall Street bankers to hawks in many of the western nations militaries; from dictatorships world-wide to local politicians posturing in parliaments.  And we accept it, because we have so thoroughly identified the myth with reality that we no longer are able to discern nature from culture.

Human beings are thinking creatures.  On this issue have we over-thought ourselves?  We have come to think of human nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and that it is only the fit that survive.  We have thought it so much that we now accept it as reality.

But it is not so.  The catchphrase – the survival of the fittest - may just be the most toxic one we have ever uttered.

1. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII, 1651.
2. I have found many references to this quote by various authors, but have not tracked down the original source, but said somewhere around the beginning of the 20th century.
3. Sigmund Freud, Civilisation and it’s Discontents, 1930.
4. Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution, 1902

5. Stefan Klein, Survival of the Nicest: how altruism made us human, and why it pays to get along, Scribe Publications, London, 2014 

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

Beyond Gratefulness, Towards Gratitude

In the midst of campaigning for social change we can become overly focused on what is wrong with the world.  We may become despondent, perhaps even angry.  We want to fix the world so that our own lives and those of others can be better.

Every so often though, something happens to us, or for us.  A friend shouts us dinner, or a rainstorm breaks a seven week drought.  Suddenly we feel grateful to the friend, grateful for the rain.

Gratefulness can often be like that.  In the midst of all the troubles of the world something good happens, or we receive a benefit of some sort.  Our response is to feel grateful.  Feeling grateful in such situations allows other emotions to be opened up: happiness, joy, or love towards the friend that bought us dinner.

But, what if, at the time the rains began, I had been in a grumpy mood.  The rainfall then may have exacerbated my grumpiness, because I was now getting wet and soaked through.  I would not feel grateful for the rain, indeed, I may feel decidedly ungrateful.

My prior state-of-mind, to some extent, determined whether I felt grateful or ungrateful.

Towards Gratitude

That is where we must move beyond gratefulness, towards gratitude.  Gratitude is something more than the oft fleeting, temporary, feeling of gratefulness.  Gratitude is a state-of-mind, a way to approach the world, irrespective of what life throws us.

Many of the world’s religious and spiritual traditions speak of gratitude.  Notwithstanding our religious, or non-religious, beliefs, their understandings can be informative.

The Benedictine monk, David Steindl-Rast, declares that gratitude…

“…is not a reaction to the present moment, because that would be something automatic.  But it is a chosen response.  It’s a real response to every moment.”¹

The Buddha too, spoke of gratitude.  In his language, Pali, the word katannuta is often translated as gratitude.  Katannuta is a combination of two Pali words: kata meaning “that which has been done,” and annuta meaning “knowing or recognising.”  Katannuta, then, is a conscious recognition that something has been done for us.

Thus, for Steindl-Rast and the Buddha, gratitude embraces a sense of cognition, a deliberate mental focus.  It is this mental focus that moves us beyond the feeling of gratefulness towards gratitude.  Gratitude is, quite simply, a state-of-mind.  Being a state-of-mind means that gratitude can be cultivated; it can be enhanced, developed and nourished.

What is it that we know or recognise that leads to gratitude?  We fully understand, know and recognise the truth of interconnectedness and the complexity of life.

Think of this blog that you are reading right now.  The components of the computer, tablet or smart phone that you are reading it on have been manufactured by workers in other parts of the world whom you have never met.  The materials they used were dug from the earth or manufactured by other workers elsewhere.  The components, and the final product, have been transported by truck or train drivers, perhaps by bicycle.  The final product was then sold to you by a shop assistant in a store.  All of these people are able to do their job because others tilled the soil and planted crops to feed them.  The crops themselves are dependent upon the nutrients and microbes in the soil, by the sunshine and the rainfall.  That’s just a start: think of the power that enables your device to be turned on so that you can read this.  Think of those who taught you to read; your parents who brought you into this world, and transported you to school so that you could learn to read.

Yes, it is a complex world and everything and everyone are interconnected.  That is the knowing and recognising behind gratitude.  It is also what is behind compassion – a close ally of gratitude.  When we know and recognise this great complexity and interconnectedness; and when we keep hold of that knowledge in our consciousness it is possible to maintain gratitude.

So, next time you become despondent about the lack of progress in social change, do as David Steindl-Rast suggests:

“The first thing is that we have to stop.”

Then, in that moment, lies the opportunity to mindfully apply gratitude.


1. David Steindl-Rast in interview with Krista Tippett, On Being – Anatomy of Gratitude, 21 January 2016.

Men: Lost or Lost Something?

When I look around me I see young men looking lost.  I see them getting drunk, and then lashing out, fighting each other, and themselves.  Men all through the western world are the predominant perpetrators of violence, and mostly the victims of that violence.  

Not only are men violent towards other men, they are also violent towards themselves.  Even though women suffer depression more than do men, males kill themselves at a rate three times that of their female counterparts.  In western nations suicide rates amongst men ranges between 10 and 20 per 100,000 men.  For women it hovers around 5 per 100,000 women.

Men too are much more likely to harm themselves through alcoholism.  The World Health Organisation (WHO) indicates that around 5-6% of men in most western nations suffer from alcohol use disorders, whilst for women the figure is 1-2%.

What's going on?  Are men lost?  Have men lost something in the post-feminism era as some would claim?  Are men no longer sure of their role in society?  Are men wandering around without purpose, without meaning in their lives?  Have men had the ground ripped out from under them?  Do men then lash out, at other men, or take it out on themselves by seeking refuge in drink, or killing themselves to end it all?

Our cultural myths and norms tell men that we are supposed to be tough, the decision-makers, the ones in control.  Men are supposed to be tough, aggressive and powerful.  That's what makes a man a man, or at least so we are told.  But we are not.  When we find that out, what does that mean for being a man?

Do men feel lost?

How can we become not lost?  Our politico-cultural myth-makers step in and provide us with answers.  Join the job market, get ahead, become the head of a corporation, beat your competitors to the market.  Work your way to power, and maybe die in the attempt.  That's one answer.  Another may be via the various violent sports, becoming a professional boxer perhaps.  That's another answer.

Yet another answer the myth-makers tell men (and increasingly, women) is to join the armed forces. In that arena you learn to be a man: learn toughness, learn patriotism, learn discipline, earn nobility.  Maybe even become a "hero."  That's another answer.

But, none of these are really an answer at all.  If the military was one such answer, why is it that far more serving or vet soldiers kill themselves than are killed "in action."?  The Veterans Association in the US estimates that up to 18 veterans kill themselves each day in the US.  That is considerably more per year than die in combat - more than the total number of active military personnel killed in active duty over the four years between 2007 and 2010.¹

Are men lost?  Or have men lost something?

When boys and then young men look at the potential role models for men, what do they mostly see?  The men who are prominently displayed are those displaying the qualities of toughness, control and power.  The leaders of most of the western-styled nations are men.  The “captains of industry” are overwhelmingly male.  The sports stars that are promenaded across TV screens and in the sports pages of daily newspapers are male.  Tough guys all of them.  And powerful.

These boys and young men go to the movies and what do they see there?  Since 1950 the incidence of violence in the movies has doubled.²  Worse still, the amount of gun-violence in movies has tripled since 1985.  Once again the violent, aggressive tough-guy is portrayed as the male-to-be.

But then these young men turn into men and discover that they are not like that, or that trying to be like that brings no joy, no satisfaction.  They’re lost.  Lost in a world in which the male map is full of tough, violent, aggressive, powerful stereotypes.  Failing, many men give up and become shells of what they could be, retreating into drink or other harmful activities.  Or completely give up, opting for suicide.

Because men feel lost some look around for something or someone to blame.  Feminism is often a convenient scapegoat.  If it hadn’t been for feminism, the fabrication goes, men would still know their place in society; the male qualities of toughness, decisiveness and power would still have credibility and would not be called into question so often.  Men would not be lost.

But feminism is not the scapegoat.  Feminism could be the answer that men are looking for and the direction towards a society in which male qualities and female qualities are balanced.  The twentieth century feminists, such as Germaine Greer, were seeking liberation, whereas what happened is that women have become more equal with men, but still operating within a patriarchal system.  Someone once quipped that “feminism aimed for liberation, but settled for equality.”  Certainly, Greer herself said that “equality is an incredibly conservative aim.”

Feminism’s aim during the 1970s and after was not to equalise the number of women within male-dominated structures, it was to turn those structures upside down.  As such, the aim of feminism could have been of immense benefit to men, because those structures were not, and still are not, beneficial to men either.

Far from being the cause of men’s depression, suicide levels or alcoholism, feminism could be an ally towards healthy manhood.  But for feminism to be an ally, men have to re-discover their real male power and work in ways that help to turn upside-down the structures that are limiting both men and women.  Two male qualities are those of action and courage.  Men can use these qualities in ways that enhance the balance of male and female.  Men can use these qualities to heal the world, to heal each other and heal the rift between not only the genders, but also between nations, cultures and religions.

Men need not be lost.  Men can re-discover what has been lost.

Note: It is possible for both men and women to have both male and female qualities, and this posting should be read with this in mind.  Carl Jung recognised the animus (male component) within women and the anima (female component) within men.

1. Nese DeBruyne and Anne Leland, American War and Military Operations Casualties; Lists and Statistics, Congressional Research Service, January 2015.
2. Brad Bushman, Patrick Jamieson, Ilana Weitz, Daniel Romer, Gun Violence Trends in Movies, PEDIATRICS: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, November 11, 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.

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.