​​OS Topic 11: A Supersaturated Theory of Change
​​for "DandDTrans," a "community of inquiry and action" regarding the role that Dialogue & Deiberation can play in addressing the mega-crises of our time
​​Image courtesy of www.NewStories.org
​​ 
​
​Main Menu: ​+Welcome​ | ​+About​ | ​+Intros​ | ​+World Cafe​ | ​+Bohm​ | ​+Open Space ​| ​+Resources​ | ​+News​ | ​+Call​​+s​ | ​+Help​

​
​ 

  • ​​Initiated by: Ben Roberts on 1/20, for discussion on this hackpad, and on ​+the 1/25 Open Space call.​ I am also convening a live Zoom videoconference at another time between 1/26-1/28--please email me if you are interested.
​​ 
  • ​​Description: I want to share a "theory of change" that inspires me, get your feedback, and think together about what we might do if we acted as if this was "true."
​​ 
  • ​​NOTE: this conversation "completed" in January 2015. If you wish to continue it, please email Ben Roberts
​​ 
​
​Thank you for showing up! 
  • ​​If you have any questions or concerns, email me or look for me on Skype any time (my contact info is benjamin_j_roberts)
​​ 
​​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.​
​​ 
​​ 

​
​How to participate in this online discussion

  1. ​​Please add your name to the list of participants just below, even if you only are here to read, so that I know that you came!
  1. ​​Please take a few minutes to read the Context section below. 
  1. ​​Offer some brief reflections in response to one or both of these questions, as well as replies to the reflections of others:
  1. ​​How does this theory of change relate to your thinking around systemic transformation?
  1. ​​What might we do right now within DandDTrans, and going forward as part of a much larger community of practice, if we acted as if this theory was "true?"
​​ 
  • ​​Note: these participation suggestions continue below the Context section, for those of you who wish to contribute to the online conversation. I may also convene a session during ​+the 1/25 Open space call​ on Sunday, 1/25 at 3pm ET/noon PT/8pm UTC.
​​ 
  • ​​Readers/Participants:
  • ​​Ben Levi
  • ​​Jeff Vander Clute
  • ​​Bob Stilger
  • ​​Ken White
  • ​​Mark Dubois 
  • ​​ Rosa Zubizarreta
  • ​​ 
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Context

​
​"Theories of Change" (h/t Ken White)
​​I've been fascinated by the notion that there are a variety of competing "theories of change" that those of us who think about systemic transformation are operating under. For me, this term refers to any idea for "how we might get from here to there," i.e. how we might accomplish the Great Turning from the current "Business as Usual" paradigm to "a world that works for all."  Often, such theories are unspoken, or even unconscious. Yet we also often seem to assume that others are operating under the same theories as we are. This has the potential to create confusion, and frustration. In THIS conversation, I want to offer a theory I find inspiring, and then have two distinct conversations about it:
  1. ​​How does this theory of change relate to your thinking around systemic transformation?
  1. ​​What might we do right now within this "DandDTrans" inquiry, and going forward as part of a much larger community of practice, if we acted as if this "supersaturated theory" was "true?"
​​ 
​
​Supersaturated Solutions as a Metaphor for Systemic Transformation
​​ 
​​What is a super-saturated solution? 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​Supersaturation is a state of a solution that contains more of the dissolved material than could be dissolved by the solvent under normal circumstances... Very small particles (seeds) can trigger the separation of the dissolved material from the solvent... Supersaturated solutions are prepared or result when some condition of a saturated solution is changed, for example decreasing (or, rarely, increasing) temperature, decreasing volume of the saturated solvent (as by liquid evaporation), or increasing pressure [from wikipedia].
​​ 
​​ 
​
​What if we think of this as a metaphor for systemic transformation through "conversations that matter?"
​​ 
​​The containers we create hold a "solution" of participants, and the conversations that happen within them "dissolve the solids" of their ideas, relationships, intentions, and energy. If we do our job well as designers, conveners, and hosts, the conversation causes the space to become "supersaturated" as more of those solids are added to the solution. Note that heat, pressure, and/or evaporation are also required to move beyond "normal" saturation levels (now there's a rich field for making some metaphoric meaning!). Once supersaturation is achieved, seed crystals (ideas, small groups with a shared intention, commitments, exchanges of requests and offers, etc.) can quickly lead to a phase shift and the emergence of a "transformational" outcome for group itself, as well as one that serves transformation in the wider world.
​​ 
​​Also, there are already containers "out there" that offer prime opportunities for convening supersaturating conversations. ​+ So many initiatives, groups, networks, alliances, etc. exist that are in powerful motion right now​. Within those "containers," the right conversation can create supersaturation, produce seed crystals, and lead to a phase shift. This is juicy work that is available all around us as D&D practitioners. 
​​ 
​​What does NOT appear to be the case right now is that there is global supersaturation such that the macro-scale changes we desire can be brought about. The current system works to prevent such supersaturation from occurring through a wide variety of negative feedback loops that support what appears to be homeostasis. That said, I do believe those feedback loops are losing their efficacy, and the global solution is becoming more and more saturated by the day. Thus the appearance of homeostasis is a fallacy, even though the global solution is not yet ready for a complete phase shift. The metaphor suggests this would be true, since a highly saturated solution does not look any different that an unsaturated one, even though it may be very close to a state that will support a phase shift. 
​​ 
​​I get frustrated with conversations that seem like complaints about this "fact" of homeostasis, as well as conversations that involve highly detailed visioning and planning for actions that would require a globally "supersaturated" state to exist when it apparently does not. Both these conversations, I believe, draw our energy down, and keep us from focusing on the "​+good, true, and beautiful​" work that is available to us right here and now.
​​ 
​​Also also, as conditions in the larger system shift, moments of supersaturation will emerge suddenly, as a large group of people sees something urgent and begins discussing it. Sometimes, these moments are local, and sometimes they are global. Think of the Occupy movement, for example. Or the 2008 financial collapse. Or global moments of near-universal grieving when something shocking and tragic occurs. At these "supersaturated" times, there is a window of opportunity for playing at a higher level if the right conversations can be convened. This may indeed require some advance planning and capacity building. However, I doubt that planning will involve the actual content of the conversations that will be effective. Rather, I am drawn to the work that will build our capacity for such convenings. And the best way I can see to do that work is to prototype it at the smaller scales that are currently possible. Indeed, one can think about the purpose of these smaller scale conversations as being the creation of "seed crystals" that can be dropped into larger scale supersaturated solutions if and when they emerge. In that fractal way, our "local" action has the potential for global impact.
​​ 
​
​Fractal Groupworks Card
​​ 
​​ 

​
​How to participate in this online conversation, continued...

​​ 
​​I invite you to take some time--even fifteen minutes will do!-- to follow the suggested directions below:
​​ 
  1. ​​Browse the ​+Resources​ pads (which you are also invited to add to, by the way!), find something that opens your heart, and "sit" with it. Here are a few suggestions:
  1. ​​​+Tree of Life​ (image)
  1. ​​​+START CLOSE IN​ (poem)
  1. ​​​+The Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers​ (video--4 min)
  1. ​​​+Anthem​ (music--6 min)
  1. ​​(1-5 min) Sit in silent reflection.
  1. ​​(5-20 min) Post something in answer to Question 1 and/or Question 2 below, using the blank templates (you can use the index in the right margin to jump down to the bottom of the pad). 
  1. ​​Feel free to improvise! You can even create "spin-off" pads if you want to add something lengthy, or start a side conversation that relates to the main one here. 
  1. ​​As desired, post comments on the responses of others. Consider following the same 1-4 protocol above for this as well.
  1. ​​If you wish, check back periodically to see if you have gotten a response. You may also get email notices of changes to this pad, if you have not turned that feature off.
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Question One: how does this theory of change relate to your thinking around systemic transformation?

​​ 
​
​Connections with Living Systems Theory and Spiral Dynamics
​​Ben Levi Jan. 21, 2015
​​I wanted to add to the conversation a reference to "supersaturation" in living systems, which I found here:
​​Here's a snippet regarding characteristics of living systems:
​​----------
  • ​​1.  Living systems have evolved towards more complex and elaborated  patterns of organization at all three levels of analysis (i.e., the  microscopic, meta-scopic and macroscopic)
  • ​​2.  Living systems tend naturally as self-organizing systems to grow in  scale, size, and complexity of pattern until supercritical states are  reached. A supercritical state can be defined as a state of super-saturation of co-evolutionary living systems in its biotic  habitat, at whatever level or scale we wish to work on... [continued via the link below]
​​ 
​​​+Ben Levi's full post is here​, along with space for you to reply, and replies from:
  • ​​Ben Roberts, 1/22
  • ​​ 
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​We're Only Human After All
​​Ken White, 22.01.15 
​​Thanks for the shout-out, Ben, and the thoughts, both Bens.
​​ 
​​One  of the challenges of analogizing from abiotc systems and living systems  over to human systems is that they're different (all three, obviously). 
​​ 
​​For example, humans have agency, most of the  time, which we can and do exercise, well, at least some of the time.
​​ 
​​So,  we might want to be cautious about how heavily we overlay one onto the  other, and make assumptions about how change can/will happen.  Particularly where human-made systems are in play (politics, economics,  culture, etc.), these are likely to be huge factors.
​​ 
​​It's  not that these models are necessarily unhelpful, just that they should  be taken with a grain of salt (sorry if that sounds like a  supersaturation pun!). As George Box famously noted, all models are  wrong, but some models are useful.
​​ 
​​So,  whatever the theory of change, IMNHSO, it has to take into account the  human element--which makes any theory therefore inherently fuzzy and  incomplete and inherently "unproven and unprovable." We're *still*  debating how World War 1 erupted and why the civil rights movement  succeeded--and there's a reason for that. Even in retrospect, it's  impossible to know with certainty how change happens. 
​​ 
​​We  can make some reasonable assumptions about how change *probably*  happened, how future change *may* happen, and what we *might* do to  nudge that change in one direction or another.
​​ 
​​Should  we toss out analogies and theories? Should we throw up our hands and  give up? IMNSHO, of course not! But perhaps we might want to think about  our theories of change as inherently "wrong," even though they can also  be "helpful."
​​ 
​​[Anyone catch the lyrical reference for "We're Only Human After All"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eccGxoJB2nM]
​​ 
  • ​​Comments on Ken's "We're Only Human After All" post 
​​ 
  • ​​[Ben Roberts, 1/23] "[P]erhaps we might want to think about  our theories of change as inherently 'wrong,' even though they can also  be 'helpful.'"  This fromsomeone who told me last June that one of his favorite things to ask people is what their theory of change is!  
​​ 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Ken]
  • ​​ 

​
​ 

​
​"It's well beyond a theory--it's what's going on"
​​From Mark Dubois, via notes taken by Ben R during a 1-1 conversation with him on 1/22., with a bit of tweaking by Mark once this was posted here on hackpad...
​​ 
​​We cannot see what we're becoming, and that we are part of the Great Turning.
​​ 
​​I don't know if we're five weeks, five months or five years before the equivalent of a great leap no one can predict. A month before Apartheid ended, or the Berlin Wall fell, or the Vietnam war ended--before Civil Rights became a concept, before the first Earth Day-- no one could have predicted the melting of these old paradigms.  The news reports that we're as stuck in "old" as ever. And I profoundly know that the conditions are SO ripe. Even those living in the most denial sense the dissonance in the world. That contributes to a saturating solution... [continued via the link below]
​​ 
  • ​​Ben Roberts, 1/22
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​Are there better terms than "theory of change?"
​​Bob Stilger, 1/22
​​Note on language: "theories of change."  I wonder if it is perhaps more useful and more accurate to speak of the values, principles, processes and practices that we find useful in these turbulent times?  Almost always, I find the "theory of change" language -- which I know has become very popular -- a bit high-falutin and pretentious.  I know in my case, I have some ideas I am trying out and some things that guide me.  But "theory of change" feels very premature. Maybe this is just a pet peeve.  I'm also the person who wants to dethrone the butterfly as the mascot of transformation because in my experience there's a great deal lacking in that metaphor.  So, just a whisper in the corner of this juicy exploration.  
​​ 
​​​+Reply to Bob here​. There are responses so far from:
  • ​​Ben Roberts, 1/22
  • ​​Bob Stilger, 1/22
  • ​​Ben Roberts, 1/23
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​Reflecting on the Q1 Conversation So Far
​​Ben Roberts, 1/23
​​ 
​​Before posting this, I followed my own instructions, and read ​+this David Whyte poem​ then sat for a brief moment of silent reflection. These lines struck me:
​​ 
  • ​​Start with your own
  • ​​                    question,
  • ​​                    give up on other
  • ​​                    people's questions,
  • ​​                    don't let them
  • ​​                    smother something
  • ​​                    simple.
​​ 
​​It occurs to me that, of the two questions I have asked here, the second (below) is truly MY question. The first one (which I even redrafted in reaction to Bob's post above!), had a conscious intention behind it to surface a larger discussion about different people's theories of change, or attitudes towards that concept in general. And I do believe that getting clearer on where we are each coming from in this regard can be very useful. And I also wonder if, at an unconscious level, the question was a search for approval and validation of "my" theory. That's fine too, and perhaps also opens the door to "other people's questions," and the risk that engaging with them might "smother something simple."
​​ 
​​So, while I do indeed welcome your responses on Q1, I think I am going to focus more of my own conversational energy going forward on Q2 below. ​+In response to Bob Stilger's post above​, I wrote: 
​​ 
  • ​​I think for me, the acid test for supersaturated opportunities [and the value of this metaphor and the theory behind it] will be the energy they generate. As the Hopi elders said (and I keep repeating!), 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​Know the river has its destination.  The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above water...  The time for the lone wolf is over.  Gather yourselves!  Banish the word struggle from you attitude and your vocabulary.  All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. 
  • ​​ 
  • ​​I invite you to  jump into the river, and swim with me, via Q2 below! 
​​ 
  • ​​Comments on Ben's "Reflecting on the Q1 Conversation So Far" post 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Ben post]
  • ​​ 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Ben's post]
​​ 
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​We Are Transforming Ourselves, Each Other, and Others
​​[Chris Smerald 1/24]
​​I am following a flow in drafting this, but here goes: I see the supersaturation more as a transformative pregnancy, bringing together internal and external changes and also creates something new. This process also relates who we were with a new way of being which is also something natural we were not in touch with. I think there is a personal and a group level that this needs to happen on. And these conversations help us transform -each separately but en mass separately, so that the group level is possible. Quoting Judith Mills from a ftf event Thursday: "coming to events like last night is a way of reframing our own story."
​​ 
​​What I find challenging about the metaphor of supersaturation is the consequence of separation is something and a part left not transformed. 
​​ 
​​Change comes from discovering and then embracing a new way that improves or preserves life. Occasionally this is just accepted or even sought, but more typically we act from crisis or compulsion when static is no longer an option. 
​​ 
​​To try to help husband transformation one needs to experiment and get the process actually working in an intuitive and effective way. This can be awkward and embarrassing so it requires courage and humility and OTHERS help and insight. 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Chris' post]
​​ 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Chris' post]

​
​ 

​
​[New Q1 Post Title]
​​[your name and date
​​[your post]
​​ 
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​[New Q1 Post Title]
​​[your name and date
​​[your post]
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Question Two: what might we do right now within DandDTrans, and going forward as part of a much larger community of practice, if we acted as if this theory was "true?"

​​ 
​​Ben Roberts, 1/22 
​​ 
​​I'm looking for opportunities to convene supersaturating conversations in the near future. I'm especially interested in prototyping three approaches, each of which has a significant virtual component:
  • ​​A "trans-local" (or "glocal") model. Examples of existing "containers" that might be primed for a "supersaturating trans-local conversation" include:
​​ 
  • ​​A "collaborative action festival." Examples of existing "containers" that might be primed for a "supersaturating collaborative action festival" include:
​​ 
  • ​​"Virtual bookending" of a large in-person gathering. Examples of upcoming gatherings that might be primed for "supersaturating virtual bookending" include:
​​ 
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​We Are Transforming Ourselves, Each Other, and Others Part 2
​​Chris Smerald 1/24
​​Continuing on from my part 1 post, if we see ourselves as seed crystals we need to come up with a structure for being and interacting which works and is helpful to others in order to be grown upon. Helping others grow larger so we might too. For me, this is about developing skills and models for action which work better in our complex times and showing how they are so. This whole enquiry is an example of an attempt to do this but it may prove that we are not ready and still forming in which patience is needed amongst the fumbling. However, we each need to take risk and also help each other pick up and move forward. Is it the killer model/method for change needed or the killer skills? I vote for skills but specific models/methods can help us develop these (like those listed above)
​​1/25 thinking about my post shifts in values and accountability are also wrapped up in this. These things drive the why we change and their evolution is part of the how we change. Not one of us is immune from a need to constantly reset these in response to our environment.
​​ 
  • ​​Ben, 1/26
  • ​​Thank you for these meditations, Chris. "[S]hifts in values and accountability are also wrapped up in this. These things drive the why we change and their evolution is part of the how we change. " Yes, yes, yes! This piece on "Soil Growth and the Art of Conversation" just crossed my path, and speaks to something similar. An excerpt:
​​ 
  • ​​Eighty percent of what determines the health of a tree is the condition of the soil - the ‘black magic’ that supports and nourishes its roots. In the context of an organization, this ‘black magic’ is found within its creative spirit: conversations about what we aspire to, about when we feel vital and alive, about the gifts and heritage from our past and our present challenges and opportunities. These are ‘root’ conversations that focus on the common roots of our shared human experience. As such, they create the fertile ground - so frequently passed over in a fast-paced environment - where the seeds of our future can take root and grow.
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Chris' post]
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​Puzzlement
​​​@Laura Chasin​, 1.24 
​​I love the metaphor of supersaturation but can't tell if and how it relates to how I think, perhaps because it is so abstract. Context. Context. My colleagues and I usually work in bounded contexts where conflict is experienced as dysfunctional by those involved. You could describe them as supersaturated with stereotypes, misunderstanding, divisive differences, anger etc although we have not. (You could describe our work as lowering the saturation level.)
​​ 
​​I would guess that the supersaturation theory is more suitable in less bounded situations in which the identified problem is too little of something desirable, eg knowledge, connection. 
​​ 
  • ​​Ben, 1/26
  • ​​Certainly, Laura, there can be negative forms of "supersaturation," as you point out, and that is not my focus here, although it does open up an interesting line for additional inquiry.
  • ​​ 
  • ​​As for bounded vs. less bounded situations, I'm not clear that the supesturation analogy applies more to the latter. Bounded situations have ready-made containers, so that can help. And they may also have a strong culture that operates to preserve the status quo, which does not. It is also true that I am personally be drawn to the space between organizations, movements, etc.
​​ 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Laura's post]
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​Insights from the Jan 25th OS Call
​​Ben Roberts, 1/26
​​I was delighted to be able to call a live session yesterday, thanks to Ben Levi holding down the Maestro fort with such skill! ​+The "full" notes are here.​
​​ 
​​My main take-away is the importance of an action orientation as part of what is needed for "supersaturation" to occur. While this might seem obvious, it is also a huge challenge when we are in the terrain of systemic transformation, as it takes us into debates about what kinds of action can actually make a difference. For this reason, in DandDTrans, the hosting team opted for beginning with a deep dive into that question rather than a more overtly action-oriented initial framework. Our hope was that action would emerge through this open space, seeded by the deeper reflections that proceeded it.
​​ 
​​I love this diagram, from The World Cafe:
​​ 
​​ 
​​I wonder if it might be a useful guide to supersaturating opportunities. As we look "out there" for containers that exist, or are "wanting to emerge," we might consider what stage the work is at, and therefore what conversations might be most catalyzing. 
​​ 
  • ​​[your name, date]
  • ​​[your response to Ben's post]
  • ​​ 

​
​ 

​​[your name and date
​​[your post]
​​ 
​​ 

​
​ 

​
​[New Q2 Post Title]
​​[your name and date
​​[your post]
​​ 
​​ 
​​ 

​
​Next Steps

​​ 
​​ 
​​ 
​​