OS Topic 9:What can help encourage the first small step by those on the sidelines?

for "DandDTrans," a "community of inquiry and action" regarding the role that Dialogue & Deiberation can play in addressing the mega-crises of our time

Couldn’t load preview

The file may have been moved or deleted, or is temporarily unavailable.

https://paper-hackpad-attachments.dropboxusercontent.com/hackpad.com_O7mT4ycEko8_p.22256_1416484929380_great%20transition%20image.png?fit=max&w=882

Image courtesy of www.NewStories.org

Note: this entire page is editable! Please be careful to only make new entries and not delete what is here. To edit, you must sign into hackpad, using either Facebook, Google, or an email and password you set up. +More on how to use hackpad here.

Initiated by: @Chris Smerald , 1/14

Description: What can help encourage the first small step by those on the sidelines?

Note: this is a continuation of the live discussion on the same topic, the notes from which can be found here.

Participants:

Ben R.

Stephanie Jo Kent

Open Space for Conversation

Find an open spot below and post your thoughts.

Grief and Inaction

[Ben Roberts, 1/15]

Reading some of the notes from the 2/13 OS call discussion on this topic, I'm reminded of my favorite quote from Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything, which often chokes me up, especially when I read it to others:

Indeed, a great deal of the work of deep social change involves having debates during which new stories can be told to replace the ones that have failed us. Because if we are to have any hope of making the kind of civilizational leap required of this fateful decade, we will need to start believing, once again, that humanity is not hopelessly selfish and greedy--the image ceaselessly sold to us by everything from reality shows to neoclassical economics.

Paradoxically, this may also give us a better understanding of our personal climate inaction, allowing many of us to view past (and present) failures with compassion, rather than angry judgment. What if part of the reason so many of us have failed to act is not because we are too selfish to care about an abstract and seemingly far-off problem--but because we are utterly overwhelmed by how much we do care? And what if we stay silent not out of acquiescence but in part because we lack the collective spaces in which to confront the raw terror of ecocide? The end of the world as we know it, after all, is not something anyone should have to face on their own.

This Changes Everything, p.471

Comments on Grief and Inaction?

[chris smerald, 1/15] Yes I like the reference. My own experience is people want to act but are frozen by being overwhelmed generally in their lives and not knowing what they could do which has any effect. This has fueled my journey which has the naive aim of finding ways to give people self-service dialog tools on the Internet and examples of how they can use them to have great impact through inclusive diversity fueled collaboration with others. This is what led me to Tom's blog and then here. I hope to write more on this under his question to see if it helps and see what emerges. Self serve is a way to build trust quickly as there is only the agenda of those who joined and set it. But if they succeed through using the power of diversity and inclusiveness as the tool is geared to, then there are role models. The pump is primed for better thinking and action in organic ways.

[Ben R., 1/16] From the post just above: "My own experience is people want to act but are frozen by being overwhelmed generally in their lives and not knowing what they could do which has any effect."

Yes, yes yes! I was saying this exact thing to the new co-ED of the +Business Alliance for the future over dinner last night. She was talking about how people seem to "tune out" climate related posts on FB, whereas a pic of her dog gets 100 "likes." and I said I thought the issue was that people didn't think there was anything they could DO about climate, other than feel terrified and guilt about tier own consumption.

What are the kinds of things we can recruit people to do that might feel like they mattered? Part of that is tying the actions to a "theory of change" that people can believe in. I would love to convene a group of 100 or so people around some "small steps" to see if we can shift this energy. Supporting an emerging initiative like the Business Alliance might actually be one possibility.

[Chris Smerald 1/17] Ouch, I just deleted and recovered this page. typing fast is dangerous. I think I have put it back as original, but I am very sorry! As penance I lost my entry and am retyping my response.

Yes definitely rethinking how we help "shift this energy" as a group would be excellent. The word recruit and the rest of your post brings to mind my experience of leading occasional volunteer research working parties for the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. When attracting volunteers it is important to pose the research topic in a way that leaves room for their own related interests, otherwise, they may be sympathetic to the topic, but repelled because its focus is too narrow relative to their specific concerns (in to the Mori Uncanny Valley we go! :). Furthermore, there may be a perceived unfairness. The organizer gets 100% of what they want and the volunteer gets only 60%. The proposition is more attractive if the organizer expands the scope so everyone gets 100% of their goal or everyone gets say 70% of their goal, but still benefit over what they could do alone. Fairness and allowance for differing priorities make engagement more likely to happen. Also, one engagement begins, the collaboration should reflect their ways of working as they may differ from the organizers. So "join us and help" may fall more flat than "this is what I care about, how can we serve both of our interests?"

[Ben, 1/18] Yes, "recruit" is probably not the best language. And of course, this must serve people's own interests, and they should have the freedom to define their portion of the work so that it does. Give them a "playground," not a "task."

I'm reminded (again!) of the way Peter Block talks about invitation as a way of being in +Community: The Structure of Belonging:

Invitation is not only a step in bringing people together, it is also a fundamental way of being in community. It manifests the willingness to live in a collaborative way. This means that a future can be created without having to force it or sell it or barter for it. When we believe that barter or subtle coercion is necessary, we are operating out of a context of scarcity and self-interest, the core currencies of the economist. Barter or coercion seems necessary when we have little faith in citizens’ desire and capacity to operate out of idealism. The choice for idealism or cynicism is a spiritual stance about the nature of human beings. Cynicism gets justified by naming itself “reality.”

A commitment to invitation as a core strategy is betting on a world not dependent on barter and incentives. It is a choice for idealism and determines the context within which people show up. For all the agony of a volunteer effort, you are rewarded by being in the room with people who are up to something larger than their immediate self-interest. You are constantly in the room with people who want to be there, even if their numbers are few. The concern we have about the turnout is simply an expression of our own doubts about the possibility that given a free choice, people will choose to create a future distinct from the past. p.117

Building Community through Mutual Obligations in a Playful Way

[Chris, 1/21] Just back from an event Re-awakening the Sacred: Business and economics where Jonathan Dawson spoke of our Natural economy, but the relevant comment was that in a sense, debt to each other builds community. I ask for help. You give it to me. You then have an obligation that I may return in a playful way with some ambiguity over whether equal value was provided. In this way are interactions are made more rich and relationships built strong and life more fun. His research says this is a type of relationship we are more programmed for than one of exactitude and avoidance. Is there a parallel for this group working together?

[Ben R., 1/24] This is very much a vision I resonate with, Chris. I do think it's possible, and that we have been prototyping it in a modest way. @Stephanie Jo Kent in particular, is demonstrating this playful approach, and is showing up with a great deal of reciprocal energy, IMHO. The overall energy level in the container feels low now though, and therefore the amount of reciprocity. I'm hoping that we see a new surge in activity in this final week, due to the two calls we are hosting and perhaps also some additional invitational work. And I'm not necessarily expecting that to happen either.

Speaking of reciprocity, I'd like to invite you over to +OS Topic 11: A Supersaturated Theory of Change! Feel free to be playful! A lot of the posts there are not in that vein so far, so we could use some lighter energy. My post re the second question I pose there mentions an idea I've been sitting with for a couple of years now, that I dubbed a "collaborative action festival." Play is an essential element, as is a "pop-up gift economy."

Other responses?

[Title]

[name, date]

Next Steps

OS Topic 9:What can help encourage the first small step by those on the sidelines?
Main Menu: Welcome | About | Intros | World Cafe | Bohm | Open Space | Resources | News | Calls | Help
Open Space for Conversation
Grief and Inaction
Building Community through Mutual Obligations in a Playful Way
Other responses?
[Title]
Next Steps

​​Open Space for Conversation

​​Next Steps

Open Space for Conversation

Next Steps