Category Archives for "Mutuality"

Participative Methods 4: World Café

Whilst I want to encourage the use of participative methods, I don’t want to imply they are easy.  These posts about community development draw attention to a variety of participatory methods.  My message is experiment, acknowledge your limitations and you will improve over time.  Share leadership and work with others when you can.

People at table in a world cafe session.

A view of typical “paraphernalia” from a World Cafe session I helped facilitate a few years ago.

World Cafe can be more flexible and straightforward than open space technology.  Broadly people sit in small groups around tables, discuss a topic which might be the same for each table or vary from table to table.  From time to time people move around, leaving one person behind to introduce new people to what was discussed earlier  This mixes insights from several tables.

Some Issues to Consider

Furniture and Paraphernalia

The main difficulty (apart from actually being participative!) is resources.  You need to accommodate everyone in a single large room around small tables, 4 at each table is ideal.  You also need flipchart paper and various flowers, sweets, toys, information sheets to encourage the right sort of atmosphere (You don’t need all this stuff but it helps some people).  One advantage of working with churches is there is no shortage of large rooms.  The ubiquitous trestle tables can be a bit of a problem but the method can work quite well with them.  Round tables optimise distance and so help with hearing and of course look better.

Hearing

Hearing can be a problem.  If tables are close together and there are a lot of them, background noise can be a real problem for some people.  (Me included!)  The size of tables is relevant: groups of 12 around vast tables are impossible because everyone has to shout to be heard.  Use the loop or PA system to clearly set the task and ask people to make sure everyone has a say.  Large sheets of flipchart paper where participants can record the conversation, can help with hearing (and will help more people than you think).

Keeping Track

With large sheets of paper and plenty of pens, people can share ideas and they serve as an aide memoire when people move around.  They can be pinned to walls to share conclusions at the end.  If you can’t manage all the other paraphernalia, do make sure pens and large A1 sheets are available.

For more information, take a look at my previous post about World Cafe that includes some resources.

Some people relate to issues by thinking about them, others through emotions or design and others by playing with things.  Have you experience of ideas springing from these different approaches?

How to Save Our Town Centres

They used to say the story of Sheffield was a tale of two cities. The old city centre was bombed during the Second World War. I can remember travelling by bus as a child into the centre and passing bomb sites. I didn’t know they were bomb sites at the time. A comedian once said the residents of Sheffield quite liked the bombed look and so modelled their city on it!

One day during the 1960s, my parents took me to the Central Library to see a model of the plans for the city centre. This was the famous “Hole in the Road”. I remember being particularly impressed by a ramp built into Cockaynes (which I thought had been there forever). It was to connect to subterranean passageways from the hole in the road (follow the link for archive photoes, scroll down for Castle Square with the hole and as it is now).

Using subways, bridges and pedestrianised streets you could walk from Moorfoot to the Castle Market without crossing a road. Sheffield was the cleanest industrial city in Europe and the greatest shopping centre outside London.

I moved away in the seventies and upon my return in 1989, the hole in the road was a shadow of its former grandeur. Sheffielders were once again enjoying empty spaces. They wrecked the centre by building Meadowhall, the biggest out-of-town shopping centre in the region, a couple of miles away.

A Tale of Three Cities!

Today it is a tale of three cities. The hole is long gone, the Supertram introduced in the early nineties and many sixties monuments replaced by millennium projects. The millennium projects have actually been quite successful and are more popular than many of the buildings they replaced.

However, as a retail centre Sheffield has not done so well. There have been several attempts to build a new shopping centre at Barkers Pool and a new proposal is under consideration at present. The Castle Market has moved to Moorfoot (so there’s no need to do the famous walk) and they’re building a new retail site nearby. But the Moor itself is a shadow of its former glory with most of the retail chains closing or moving to Meadowhall. Fargate, arguably, the main retail street, is a mess. It looks like someone emptied a back catalogue of street furniture onto one street and then paved it with Italianate cobbles that make walking along it an unpleasant experience.

How to Save Our Town Centres

I could write more about Sheffield’s centre (and possibly should) and it will be familiar to Julian Dobson who lives in the same city and is the author of “ How to Save Our Town Centres: A radical agenda for the future of high streets”.

The only thing I would take issue with is the book’s title that hardly does justice to its content. The implications of his argument would stretch far beyond town centres and are relevant to every neighbourhood.

I’ve covered ideas in this book previously in this blog. (He uses the term Agora and writes about the retail co-operative movement’s significance.) The writing is brilliant, a pleasure to read and I’m really jealous he has managed so much I’ve attempted to write about!

The book is not only a pleasure to read but also practical. There are many examples of projects all over the United Kingdom and indeed the world. Experiments are happening all over despite the lack of political support for change. Dobson includes practical suggestions for activists and legislators, should we ever manage to elect politicians who truly share our interests in a thriving national localised economy.

Of all the books I’ve reviewed so far (and I’ve reviewed some very good books) this is the one I most wholeheartedly recommend you read. I’ll write more about it over the next few Fridays.

Participative Methods 3: Open Space Technology

I first encountered Open Space Technology in the early 2000s through the Primary Care Trust in East Rotherham.  They introduced it as a method used for a couple of hours in a community setting.  I used it a few times, with various groups engaged with community planning.

Open Space Technology appealed to me because I knew about several other participative approaches.  Also, it worked well with local people.  As is often the case with participative methods, it is professionals who struggle with it!

Longer Conferences

Audience in rows with keynote speakers

Some conferences prefer keynote speakers!

Open Space Technology is effective for longer conferences: one day conferences work and apparently a 2 to 3 day residentials can be particularly effective.  I’ve found Open Space Technology more problematic over 24 hour sessions.  This may be accounted for by  audiences of professional people and maybe 24 hours is not long enough for the benefits to become clear.

With longer conferences, I learned a few hard truths.  Open Space Technology

 

  • is difficult to facilitate.  It can take up to 45 minutes to set up a session and this can be tedious,
  • really needs to be run with people who agree to take part in advance.  It is difficult to communicate the benefits and the spirit to an unprepared group.
  • is easily undermined by dominant people.  I remember one session where a senior person wouldn’t let me start a session after I’d set it up because he claimed everyone wanted to do a particular workshop.  He asked me to tell them all to do the workshop even though I was about to ask them to choose what they wanted to do!  I pointed out this contradiction to him afterwards and I think he saw it.
  • with short sessions it seems to work quite well but with a long session, it is perhaps best to go for 2 or 3 days.  One day produces useful and insightful information but does not allow time to move those taking part to action planning.  This has cost implications and some people find it hard to commit to 3 days without keynote speakers!
  • if you have resident experts, you should not use them as keynote speakers, they can offer workshops like everyone else!

Evaluation

I’ve found whilst people in neighbourhoods find Open Space Technology liberating, professional people with agendas find freedom to explore issues profoundly threatening.

Open Space Technology is a powerful method when people contract to use it in advance.  It is less effective with unprepared participants.  The challenge is to find contexts where it works well.

Perhaps my previous account of Open Space Technology is a little more optimistic about its use. The older post includes a link to a book about the method. For community organisations the practicalities of running very long sessions may be prohibitive. However, it can be used effectively in a couple of hours, particularly if participants are familiar with the approach.

Have you found participatory methods appeal more to local activists than they do to professionals?  Why do you think that is? Have you been able to use it for short sessions? For sessions covering a day or more?

The Heritage of Asset Based Community Development

I’m not familiar with Asset Based Community Development (ABCD). However, Cormac Russell’s book “Looking Back to Look Forward” has inspired me to find out more.

The book is primarily Cormac Russell “in conversation with John McKnight about the heritage of Asset Based Community Development and its place in the world today”. John McKnight is one of the founders of ABCD. The core of the book explores nine key thinkers, who were or are McKnight’s contemporaries and inspirations.

The book has a helpful bibliography about ABCD. ABCD will re-issue it in an expanded form in 2016, to include interviews with other founders of the movement.

Alinski and Illich

Of the nine key thinkers I was previously familiar with two, Saul Alinski and Ivan Illich. The other seven thinkers and activists cover a vast area of expertise in areas such as a health, education and the arts.

Ivan Illich observed that as institutions develop they move from their foundation principles through various phases. They culminate in self-defeat, meaning they reinforce the problems they were set up to solve.

They clearly illustrate this principle in the economy. Local businesses exist to enrich communities. Good business people leave a trail of new or improved businesses because their model is generosity. Obviously things don’t always pan out that way and many business owners do not excel as employers, for example.  We remember the pioneers of the industrial revolution who left a great civic legacy. They were also exploiters of their employees.

At some point in the growth of a business it slips its moorings and ceases to benefit the wider community, concentrating wealth in fewer hands and extracting it from circulation in the economy. So, big businesses no longer enrich and begin to impoverish local economies.

Communities from the Inside Out

The vision behind ABCD is residents can grow their communities from the inside out, using the assets naturally available to them. They throw “their lives into becoming the counterbalance to a non-sustaining consumer culture”. Their negative view of the marketplace perhaps marrs his positive approach in some part. I would like to see a more positive vision of the marketplace when it is a place for sharing of local assets.

There has to be some focal point where communities share their assets and why not call it the marketplace? It would certainly be a more historically accurate use of the word than the current neo-liberal version.

The assets available to communities appear to fall into six categories:

  • local residents’ skills;
  • local associations and the power they exercise;
  • resources of public, private and non-profit institutions;
  • physical resources and ecology;
  • economic resources of local places; and
  • the stories and heritage of local places.

It would be interesting to explore each of these in some depth and to find out how the longer book due out in 2016 develops them.

Whilst I am sure the ABCD approach is on the right lines, I am less sure it has sufficient leverage to effect the changes we so desperately need. I hope to see in the longer book a positive approach to reclaiming marketplaces in local neighbourhoods and an analysis of the political leverage required to effect real change.

Participative Methods 2: Participatory Appraisal

PictureThe picture shows a PRA ranking exercise conducted by Kamal Kar. The participants were women members of a Farmer Field School organised by CARE.

Picture taken by APB-CMX, Bangladesh, 2004. The picture shows a PRA ranking exercise conducted by Kamal Kar. The participants were women members of a Farmer Field School organised by CARE.

Participatory appraisal (PA) developed in Africa where it was known as participatory rural appraisal and so it is sometimes called PRA.  Someone experienced PRA in Africa and brought it back to Humberside during the nineties and developed it into PA, an approach for urban communities in the UK.  It is essentially an approach that combines research with community development, recruiting everyone into building, owning and controlling their own information about their neighbourhoods.

Its big advantage is flexibility.  PA can be used indoors or outdoors, with small or large groups, informally (eg table to table in a pub or café or on the street) or formally at a meeting designed for the purpose.  It can be used with people of all ages and I’ve yet to find a minimum or maximum age!

The main disadvantage is you need training for your facilitators and they need lots of experience to do it properly.  They need to understand the tendency for groups drift away from a participatory approach, despite their best intentions. Think of PA as a video game.  Game over means you can restart and use what you have learned to progress further next time.  Very few of us really understand participation and so we learn by doing and reflecting.

Initial training typically takes five full days. I have posted about PA and courses available in the UK. The news is not good at present and I am not aware of any courses I can recommend.

Leaders tend to dominate meetings and impose their views upon others.  This applies to everyone including the practitioners of PA.  Therefore practitioners need to be alert to their own practice and when they start to be directive.  For this reason practitioners rarely work alone, so that at least one other can observe what is happening and discuss it afterwards.

I remember working with children in a class at a school.  A woman who was a powerful leader in her own community partnered me and we asked the children to draw a map of their neighbourhood.  We agreed I would interrogate the map.  When the children were ready my partner grabbed the pens and started to interrogate the map.  There was little I could do other than take on the observer support role.  At the end of the session my partner asked me what I thought of her performance.  I told her and gave examples of where she had been directive.  She was not impressed.  A couple of days later, at the end of the training course, she told me she had reflected on what I said and it had been helpful.

I tell this story to illustrate the honesty and trust required to make PA work but it is worth it.

The thing that attracts many people to PA is its tools.  These are approaches to helping people voice their concerns and ideas.  You can also develop your own tools.  Most tools use large sheets of flipchart paper and the idea is to make sure everyone has access to pens and uses them.  Some people claim they can’t draw and ask others to draw on their behalf.  I’ve generally found that once people get started they’ll get into it and then almost nothing will stop them.

The thing that will stop them is a dominant person, who can impose their authority on a group in seconds.  “We know the answer to that.”  So, the third essential following training and tools is experience.  You need to be able to see when people are domineering (and they’re often charming people) and work out ways to neutralise their effect.  So, in the classroom I mentioned earlier, one of the practitioners asked the teacher to draw a map.  We agreed this in advance.  The teacher claimed to know exactly what was going on but co-operated because it did stop her interfering and she wanted to hear the results as much as we did.  But note without our intervention she might have walked around the class and made comments.  We showed her how to be most helpful.  Some dominant people are sensitive and some aren’t.  Good luck!

Personally I like going out in the freezing cold with flipchart paper and pens and asking people to map their area.  For some reason I find it hard to persuade others to join me.  I don’t think it’s the cold that puts them off.  Listening to people is costly to start with but infinitely rewarding.

Most participative methods can be wrecked by charming leaders.  How have you helped them stand aside?  Are you aware of courses you can recommend?

Location is Everything

One of the insights that have kept me going as a community development worker is “it’s where your feet are!” Many claim it is our heart or mind that forms our role in the world. There is a degree of truth in this because it is certainly true that our values are important.  But what forms our values? Perhaps our geographical location, where our feet are? Certainly the relationship between place and values is complex.  It cannot be ignored, location is everything.

There is interplay between our online and offline practice in a parallel complex fashion. David R Bell in his book “Location is (Still) Everything: the Surprising Influence of the Real World on How We Search, Shop, and Sell in the Virtual One“ makes a valiant start at unpicking this relationship.

His interest is primarily in lessons for online marketers and so his emphasis is on the behaviour of customers in aggregate and not so much the behaviour of communities and economies. His perspective is that of a business owner who is seeking a market on a nationwide scale and then on the impact these decisions might have on a community, where many such decisions affect the lives of residents, without their knowledge or consent.

The book is full of helpful insights and we should be grateful for that. The question, as always is how we use the insights gleaned from such research. This work opens up a lot of questions and finding answers to some of them is one of the purposes of this blog.

Marketing GRAVITY

Bell uses an acrostic, GRAVITY, to organise his message across seven chapters.

  • Geography is the foundational idea, that where we live to some degree determines our relationship with the online world. Your online interests may be determined by the goods and services available locally. Obviously if something is not available it is possible to find it online. But perhaps less obvious is the way we can explore local possibilities online and then travel to make a purchase.
  • Resistance is where our economic activities encounter barriers, of which there appear to be two main ones. Distance is one. However attractive an offer may be, there is a limit to the distance customers will travel to take advantage of it. The second is ease of searching for a solution to a problem.
  • Adjacency is about how sales tend to cluster in geographical areas because of the spread of the news of a product or service by word of mouth or example.
  • Vicinity is where people with similar lifestyles and values live in very different places and how information passed between them.
  • Isolation looks at behaviours in areas with varying degrees of provision of a particular commodity. Where demand is high, local shops will tend to stock more options than in places where demand is low.  So, are people who live in low demand areas, more likely to purchase online?
  • Topography explores some of the complexities of relationships between what is available online and locally. It doesn’t follow that online information leads inevitably to online sales. It is possible to find out what is available locally online. This is all further complicated by the growth of mobile devices.
  • You explores some of the implications of GRAVITY for developing businesses.

All of these are worth further consideration about their implications for local markets.

One final word of high praise for David R Bell. It is always invigorating to find a writer who knows how to use the word “nice” nicely.

Participative Methods 1: General Principles

Of the three functions:

the first is most important.  If you cannot hear residents’ views, community development cannot happen.  Ask residents to express their views through conversations, mediated through spoken words, writing or pictures.  Participative methods enable recorded conversations in non-directive environments.  Whilst structured meetings are important, sometimes agendas set aside help people find space to express their concerns.

Facilitation of participative conversations, using any method, requires an understanding of some basic principles and a feel for what is genuine participation.

You need experience and so experiment!  How?

  • Accept you will get it wrong frequently and when experienced, from time to time.
  • Wherever possible work with a partner.  Give each other permission to point out where you fail to work participatively.
  • Watch others at work, take part in events and take whatever training is on offer.
People working in small groups around tables with pens and paper.

Setting up small groups around tables is not so difficult. You will be surprised how many can be accommodated!

General Principles

Information about these methods is hard to find practitioners pass them on through training.  Whilst this may be frustrating it is good to heed their warnings.  Here are a few things to consider when you set out to work participatively.

  • Community groups often have inspirational and engaging leaders, who do not work participatively.  You need to prepare for any event by explaining what you are trying to do.  It is not worth going to the trouble of organising anything participative if the leaders do not understand and support it.  They can wreck an event in seconds and will do so if they do not support it.
  • Rearranging furniture can make a big difference, eg a move from chairs in rows (an arrangement which enables control of a meeting) to chairs around small tables.
  • But don’t stop there; think through changes to the ways of you work with this layout.  What do you need on each table to help sharing ideas?  Paper, pens, background information, models …
  • Plan a programme that moves between different approaches depending on participants’ emerging needs.
  • Working with a team means you can have a team member on each table.  They can explain each stage and report back about how you can improve participation.
  • Sometimes experienced resource people dominate a table but you can hold them in reserve.  When people ask, they can go to a table and contribute their expertise.
  • The information generated needs to be recorded.   Work out how to do this before the meeting.
  • Make sure the participants understand their information belongs to them, will be available to them and can be withdrawn at their request.

Helpful Links

I have previously written posts about participatory methods. Over the next few weeks I shall revisit them, considering how each is used in typical UK community development contexts.  These links are to the earlier posts.

Participative Methods

What is your experience using participative methods?  What difficulties have you met and what tips do you have for participative meetings?

A Three Pillar Democracy

Last time I wrote about how “Motivation and Meaning” is behind all economic and political systems. In this third part of my review of “Change Everything” by Christian Felber, I shall consider his chapter about “Advancing Democracy”, wherein Felber suggests a three pillar democracy.

Sovereignty

The chapter describes an approach to democracy where the people are sovereign. Felber lives in Austria and many of the examples are from Central Europe. Quite how this idea goes down in the UK, with a monarch as  sovereign, is not yet known.  (Political parties opposed to membership of the EU, claim they believe in national sovereignty for the UK by which they presumably mean sovereignty of the monarch.  In the real world, Parliament has handed over sovereignty to the large corporations and I don’t suppose leaving the EU will make much difference to that.  This doesn’t make me optimistic that we’ll see a sensible or informed debate about sovereignty in this country.)

The September 2014 Scottish referendum is an example of how direct democracy can empower populations. Felber claims the sovereign people are usually more cautious than their politicians. The results of the referendum, show a significant majority voted to stay as part of the UK. However, the referendum radicalised the people and so in the General Election, May 2015, most seats went to the Scottish National Party (SNP).

The problem was with the referendum itself. The politicians designed the question to meet their own interests. The ambiguities meant many who voted no in the referendum actually wanted change as we saw in the General Election results. If the results of the first ballot was a no to the SNP, the results of the second was a no to the Westminster élite. Is anyone planning to find out what the people actually want?

A Constitutional Convention

Felber would suggest establishing a convention, independent of the Scottish or UK parliaments. The people would elect members of the convention whose task would be to come up with a political solution acceptable to the people of Scotland. A referendum confirms their recommendations.

Under such a system, referendums would stop being the plaything of governments and become a genuine element of participative democracy.  I am not optimistic referendums can offer the public a free choice whilst politicians set the question.

Three-Pillar Democracy

Felber suggests a three pillar approach to democracy that mirrors my three function model for community development.

Representative Democracy

So, representative democracy at national level mirrors the representational role of community organisations. (This link is to the first of three.)  However, practical considerations limit the direct democratic involvement of people.  This is why we elect parliaments, councils, etc – we entrust politicians to act on our behalf.  That our politicians are not accountable between elections is one the major democratic challenges we face.  They write the manifestos and then can change them once they’re in power.  We get to vote for parties and can’t pick and mix policies between parties.  If we disagree with a decision made during a term of office, we have no way of communicating which policy we disagree with through voting.

Our politicians cannot be trusted to truly represent people’s views. They decide the agenda and have exclusive powers to draft legislation, treaties, etc. Their most powerful lobbies are the corporations. The politicians have given away too much power to these lobbies and ordinary citizens have nothing like equal power over the politicians they elect.

Direct Democracy

This is where the second pillar comes in, direct democracy. This mirrors the planning stage of my three function model. Locally, planning is an opportunity for community organisations to meet with other local interest groups such as the council, police, NHS and local businesses.

A convention would be equivalent to representatives of community organisation directly involved in negotiations.   The elected convention’s task is to draft treaties and other agreements, which act as frameworks for politicians, on behalf of the people. They would not normally draft legislation, their role is constitutional.  So, determination of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, would include the roles of the Scottish and Westminster parliaments.  Parliaments make decisions about legislation within the constitutional agreement.  The convention would act in an open way, consulting with all interests and producing legislation for agreement at a referendum.

This would be for deciding constitutional issues, eg Scotland’s governance, the treaty with Europe (an international convention, perhaps?) and so on. Anything requiring a referendum would start with a convention.  The referendum would be to accept or reject the findings of the convention.

Participatory Democracy

Finally, participatory democracy is equivalent to the delivery function in my local model.  It is where people can be directly involved in their place of work, for example.

As these three pillars develop, they reinforce one another. As people find out about the enhanced power of participatory democracy, they are likely to increase their own involvement. With such political structures in place, we are likely to find they reinforce democratic involvement in our neighbourhoods and work places as well as at council and parliamentary levels. We will rediscover the political process in the marketplace.

The three local functions may seem weaker than the national democratic functions.  This is a product of contemporary national politics; national politics is more powerful and the weakness of local politics is part of the same system.  Introducing these three distinct pillars of democracy would strengthen local democracy people became more familiar with democratic participation.

Delivery Organisations

In my last post, I continued describing my three function model by looking at planning.  In this post, which completes this sequence introducing my three function model, I shall move onto the third function:

Things to understand about delivery.  It is:

  • most demanding in terms of time and resources compared with representation and planning
  • likely to be carried out by several organisations, not all necessarily community based
  • there may be competition for service delivery between a variety of organisations, some may be local and others might be professional voluntary, private or public sector organisations
  • accountable in different ways but primarily to customers and prospective customers.  Locally, people excluded for various reasons may need to be heard.
  • a necessary voice in the local planning process.  Why?   Because delivery organisations know what can and cannot be achieved.  Sometimes they might need to be pushed to reconsider but generally they know what is possible.  It may not be practical for every planning organisation to be present at the table for community planning and for some their contribution relevant to a few topics only.  It is important though that where delivery organisations have an interest, their views are heard.  If they can be present where they have an interest it may be beneficial although care needs to be taken there is no conflict of interest.

The last bullet may be easier if the delivery organisation is home-grown.  External delivery organisations can be very good but some can be tied to binding contracts (often not public documents) and so their potential contribution may be limited or possibly not trusted.

Vestry Hall

The Vestry Hall in Burngreave, Sheffield was derelict for many years. Redeveloped by New Deal, it delivers training for local residents.

If a number of groups are likely to be invited to tender for implementation of a plan, they may not have been a part of the planning process.  The planning group will need to design a tendering process that tests them against the plan.  Make it known you want tenders that meet basic criteria and add value to it.

What are your experiences of project delivery and how have you approached local accountability?  Let me know through the comments.  I’d be happy to expand on some of the issues raised in this post, just let me know which ones interest you.

So far, I’ve offered a model that presents an ideal picture of what can be done locally to be effective in development work and local regeneration.  The representative function is most important for communities; get it right and the rest should be easier to follow through.  In the next post  I shall return to the topic of participatory methods for representative organisations.

Motivation and Meaning

From Economics to Politics

Christian Felber’s Change Everything is about economics but it soon becomes clear democracy is central to its proposals. If we are seeking a fair economic system, then we must improve our democratic or political systems.  This post focuses on his chapter: Motivation and Meaning.

History tells us humanity is very good at inventing unjust economic systems. Indeed the purpose of many political systems appear to be to legitimise injustice. Where there is justice it tends to draw little attention and can seem unstable. However, given most political systems prove unstable in the end, this does not mean justice is impractical.

It’s easy to forget the equitable purposes of institutions over time. For example, insurance used to be a means to share risk. If someone claimed, everyone’s premium would increase by a very small amount. These days if you make a claim, your premium increases by a large amount. We’ve forgotten the equitable principles underlying the original scheme.

There are many other examples; the carpetbaggers of the 1980s, who joined building societies with the intention to vote for their demutualisation. Demutualisation changed assets owned collectively into shares owned by each shareholder.

So, there is something more fundamental than either politics or economics. It is fundamentally to do with our spirituality, the values that we bring to the marketplace.

From Politics to Spirituality

Felber’s chapter Motivation and Meaning is a good place to start.

Survival of the Fittest

I have written in earlier posts about the mis-use of Darwinism by apologists for the current economic system. Felber writes on page 106, “the capitalistic, that is, social Darwinist image of humankind according to which human beings are primarily motivated by egoism and competition“.

Why do we attribute this view to Darwin? Presumably it alludes to the “survival of the fittest”, a term missing from the first edition of the Origin of the Species. Alfred Russell Wallace who proposed a similar theory of evolution to Darwin’s at around the same time, makes no reference to it.

Somehow survival of the fittest has become integral to the Theory of Evolution. Why is this? It seems likely competition was an important element of the worldview of the powerful at the time of Darwin and Wallace. They seized upon survival of the fittest as a way of demonstrating their approach as natural.

It is hard to think of a more blatant example of science being formed by society. The powerful wanted a theory of evolution that supported their way of doing things and that’s what we have. They say, “Our economic system is just like natural evolution where the powerful survive and the weak go to the wall.” This is perhaps one of the most damaging myths of our time.

Questioning Competition

Is it true competition solely motivates people? 80% of new business start-ups fail. Obviously there are many reasons they fail and some ideas deserve to fail. But how many fail because they believe in competition? They believe not only that they have to protect their business against competition but that they have to work alone, never in partnership. I suspect it is those businesses that understand businesses survive when they collaborate that do in fact survive (assuming they are viable). Viable businesses fail when they are badly managed and a mindset that is competitive to other businesses and bullying to its staff is likely to be poor at management.

On page 113 Felber writes,

“Thus the root of the problem lies in inwardly impoverished people who are incapable of investing their own lives with meaning; they lack the self-confidence needed to recognise themselves as being ultimately responsible for their own lives and their own decisions.“

Competition pushes the reason for my failure onto someone else. It motivates me and maybe in the short-term winning the competition means business success. But in the end it seems “those who live by the sword perish by the sword”. The original Greek does not use ‘die’ but ‘perish’. The difference is intentional, to live in this way causes the person to perish, to lack meaning or purpose other than to triumph in competition. We confuse perish and die because to perish is to die from the inside out. Most of the world’s religions recognise this.

Competition and Meaning

If we are planning to change everything, to change economic systems towards something more collaborative, equitable and sustainable, it is necessary to change our political systems and to change our political systems we need to change ourselves. It’s a tall order and one that has been known for centuries. If we’ve been trying for centuries and failed, why should we be successful this time?  If only competition motivates us, what does this say about the meaning of our activities?  Is it true the “business of business is business”?

Who says we’ve failed? Perhaps the times and places where there is justice appear rare. Often they are communities within a larger economic system they oppose, perhaps by having a profound impact. The retail co-operative movement, which because it was successful inspired many other experiments into mutuality and education, had an impact in the fine-grain of our lives in many ways we don’t notice unless we know some history. We don’t see it because our attention is rarely drawn to it. This is what happens when you have a single prevailing economic worldview.

1 3 4 5 6 7 14