I’ve been reflecting on five years of work here at the Interaction Institute for Social Change.  As inside so outside.  My life has changed dramatically over the last five years.  And so has the world.  Seriousness about social transformation, commitment to the evolutionary process, a burning thirst for justice – a posture that demands sharp attunement with the present moment.

What am I learning?  What is possible today that was not possible five years ago?  I am married, I have a son, I live in Dorchester, I am doing sadhana.  Tahrir Square, President Obama, Financial Meltdown, the 99%.  It’s a new day.

We’ve come to an opening.  A moment of exception.  A point in time in which reality has become more malleable.  We are asking questions about our social arrangements, our relationship with the planet, and our spiritual development.

What is clear to me is that the Interaction Institute moves towards its name, not away from it.  I have become more convinced that generative interaction is what allows us to co-create new realities.  It is the way to be in movement together.  The most practicable ways to wake up to greater freedom are found in interaction with one another.

I recently came upon the following abstract of a paper we presented at the Sutures Conference in the University of Toronto back in 2003.  I was intrigued by the continuing relevance of the concept and how these ideas continue to inform my work:

Thought, Practice, Experience: the concept of exploded democracy.

Nicolas Mounier, Gibran Rivera (Tufts), Saman Wickramasinghe (UofT)

Abstract:

We propose that lives should, collectively and individually, be works of art.  What we mean by this is that lives can in themselves be a perpetual stylization of thoughts, experiences and practices.  Here the question of being is treated as inherently antagonistic and therefore political.  From this platform the notion of radical democracy as it is currently articulated must further be tweaked in order for it to capture and serve this agenda.  We suggest an ‘exploded’ concept of democracy and the political can more fully be understood, pursued and experienced with tools produced and provided by a practico-theoretical framework grounded in social and political theory. The following is a reflective paper taking as its material of inquiry the authors’ current political activities and experiences in a grass-roots democratization movement in Boston and in a progressive health promotion organization based in Sri Lanka. This reflection is informed by certain aspects of Pierre Bourdieu’s social theory and the radical democratic experimentalism of Chantal Mouffe and Roberto Mangabeira Unger.  The authors point to a new direction for democracy

“You don’t understand, the United States will not be making cars.”  The film Climate Refugees quotes President Roosevelt speaking to auto executives at the outset of World War II.  Most of us know about the mobilization of American industry to build a war machine capable of defeating the Axis Powers.  Fewer of us understand what it took.

Global war demanded the mobilization of every human and industrial resource available.  The film speaks of what it took to build tens of thousands of tanks and airplanes even as it speaks of our immediate need for tens of thousands of wind power generators.  Global Warming is thousands of times more dangerous than global war, we have demonstrated that we have the power to avert humanity’s greatest crisis – what we lack is the wisdom and the political will to make it a priority.

The following quote from Slavoj Zizek’s “First as Tragedy, then as Farce” further illustrates the point:

[A]lthough we always recognized the urgency of the problems, when we were fighting AIDS, hunger, water shortages, global warming, and so on, there always seemed to be time to reflect, to postpone decisions (recall how the main conclusion of the last meeting of world leaders in Bali, hailed as a success, was that they would meet again in two years to continue their talks …). But with the financial meltdown, the urgency to act was unconditional; sums of an unimaginable magnitude had to be found immediately. Saving endangered species, saving the planet from global warming, saving AIDS patients and those dying for lack of funds for expensive treatments, saving the starving children … all this can wait a little bit. The call to “save the banks!” by contrast, is an unconditional imperative which must be met with immediate action. The panic was so absolute that a transnational and non-partisan unity was immediately established, all grudges between world leaders being momentarily forgotten in order to avert the catastrophe. But what the much praised “bi-partisan” approach effectively meant was that even democratic procedures were de facto suspended: there was no time to engage in proper debate, and those who opposed the plan in the US Congress were quickly made to fall in with the majority. Bush, McCain, and Obama all quickly got together, explaining to confused congressmen and women that there was simply no time for discussion- we were in a state of emergency, and things simply had to be done fast … And let us also not forget that the sublimely enormous sums of money were spent not on some clear “real” or concrete problem, but essentially in order to restore confidence in the markets, that is, simply to change people’s beliefs!

We have the power, how do we shift our priorities?

- john a. powell

Systems Thinking and Racial Justice Featuring Professor john powell from Bella Celnik on Vimeo.

Much appreciation goes out to our friends and colleagues in the Leadership Learning Community for hosting this May 16th webinar with esteemed Professor john powell, Executive Director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study on Race and Ethnicity, and the Gregory H. Williams Chair in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  IISC has been privileged to have partnered in the past with staff of Kirwan to shed light on the complex systemic nature and inter-sectional realities of racialized outcomes in our country.  You can also check out other interviews, like this one, with Professor powell.

I was just talking to a scientist friend of mine.  He told me, and I quote, that “unfortunately, in science, we fail 95% of the time, we inch along towards a breakthrough.”  There is a lot of good talk about failure lately, but I don’t think I had ever heard it this way before.  When I heard him say that I felt like I wished it was a widely known fact.

We still place a high level of trust on science; we use it to validate almost everything.  What if more of us understood how science works?  Maybe we would be a lot more compassionate with ourselves!  I certainly hope that we would be less afraid to try new things.  Maybe we would even be less judgmental of others.

And what about our organizations?  I can’t help but notice the way we beat up on our own organizations.  We get so frustrated that they are not perfect – as if a perfect place really existed.  We beat up our leaders for our collective failures while we ourselves fail to take responsibility.

But really – we are all just inching our way along.  We are doing it in our personal lives and we are doing it in our organizational lives.  We’ll keep on making mistakes.  The important thing is to pay attention, to be thorough and rigorous with our observations, to make necessary adjustments, to try new things.  Judge a little less, and be a lot less afraid, this is just the way things work.

We at IISC have the privilege of witnessing heartful, sometimes heart wrenching dialogue about critical issues in our world from multiple perspectives. We work with passionate laypeople and professionals focused on education, environment and sustainability, public health, peace and justice, youth development, racial justice, city planning and community development, to name a few disciplines.

I’m encouraged by a few themes that are coming up more and more in our work. And, I’m even more encouraged that increasingly, they are emerging as imperatives, not just “nice ideas.”  As we facilitate processes and bear witness to the struggle to bring forth justice, here are some of the voices we’ve heard calling out:

-        Collaboration—We need to work across traditional boundaries because the issues are bigger than any of us.

-        Networks—We need to work “wikily” – finding common ground where ever we can, decentralizing efforts to whatever extent possible, resisting the desire for conformity and uniformity, relying on the wisdom of crowds and democratizing the tools of production – intellectual and cultural production.

-        Diversity—We really need everyone at the table, not as window dressing, but as full partners whose presence and engagement will make the difference between success and failure.

-        Equity—We need to concern ourselves with real outcomes, not just abstract opportunities, and we need to account for the present day legacy of historic systems of oppression and patterns of exclusion.

-        Systems thinking—If we stand a chance at making significant and lasting changes in the direction of equity, we need a sophisticated understanding of systems—how institutions, structures, norms, and behaviors interact to produce intended and unintended consequences, how systems tend to adapt to resist change, and where we can find leverage points for change.

-        Love—Unconditional regard for others is a powerful force for change that springs from the depth of our souls. We need to draw on that power and nurture one another as we struggle together for change.

What are the voices you hear crying out?

In fact, though, the rise of the independents represents a movement in exactly the opposite direction — away from party organizations altogether…  This isn’t so much a political phenomenon as it is a cultural one. In the last decade or so, the Web has created an increasingly decentralized and customized society, in which a new generation of voters seems less aligned, generally, with large institutions. MoveOn.org and the Tea Party groups, for instance, were born as protests against the establishments of both parties, and they empowered citizens to create their own agendas, rather than relying on any elected leadership.

I’ve been talking about decentralization for a long time, the national pattern replicate itself at all levels and even relatively small local organizations tend to have the same “centralizing institutional feel” of our obsolete party structures.  The cultural shift is real.  We have enjoyed self-organized free association since before the times of Alexis de Toqueville – human beings are born social.  The web makes is easy and cheap for us to self-organize and free associate at a global scale – it facilitates our doing what we want to do, it does not cause it.

It seems to me that part of the problem at this time of transition from one paradigm to another is that even when we are looking at decentralized ways of organizing ourselves we are doing it in order to affect centralized systems.  To me, the learning edge question is how do we govern ourselves in a less institutional, more decentralized way?  I am not asking “how do we form a government,” I am asking:  how do we govern ourselves – how do we organize ourselves in such a way that we can actually address the currently real threats to the survival of our species?

photo by partie traumatic

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic.  Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This often quoted comment by Dr. King forms the foundation of Adam Kahane’s new book,  Love and Power: A theory and practice of social change. Melinda Weekes and I attended a recent book talk by Adam, attracted to the topic because, at IISC we’ve been thinking through and practicing the connections among power, love, networks and collaboration for years now.  Much of what Adam shared resonates with our thinking. The book builds on the thinking of theologian Paul Tillich.   His definitions are worth taking a closer look:

• “Power: the drive of everything living to realize itself with increasing intensity and extensity.”  The focus is on development, growth, and self-determination.

• “Love: the drive towards the unity of the separated.” The focus here implies an underlying unity that has been lost or broken.

Adam argues, and we agree, that joining love and power holds a key to powerful social transformation.  And, he reminds us, as Dr. King did, of that both love and power have positive/generative dimensions, and negative/degenerative dimensions.

Where have you seen loveless exercises of power at in social change work?  Where have you seen powerless expressions of love?  And, most intriguingly, where have you see a powerful combination of power and love in their most positive, generative manifestations, help to change the world?

Photo by eqqman

Based on the recent conversation we’ve been having here, I thought I’d re-post from last April.

For a while, I’ve been fairly unsuccessfully trying to create a space in my apartment that works both for my heart and for my head. My meditation cushion is there as well as my altar and poetry and spiritual books. It also has my desk, computer and bookshelves overstuffed with books and journals about power, white privilege, race, class, genocide, conflict and social issues. If I’m honest, it’s the most chaotic room in my apartment.

My recent post on the limits of policy elicited a very good conversation.  One of the things that became evident is that in some settings people are so focused on their personal development and their community life that they pay little attention to the issues of the day.  In other settings people are so focused on the fight for justice through policy change that they pay little attention to their own well being or to the hard work of building community.

While I have no data at my fingertips, I would venture to hypothesize that many of the people that are focused on structural change share an analysis that pays lots of attention to issues of equity, power and inclusion.  I also suspect that many of the people focused on personal development and community life come into their focus from a well meaning but privileged perspective.

The answer seems easy on the surface – we need to focus on both – and it’s absolutely true.  But it is so much easier said than done!  One side might be so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems our society faces and so stumped by the intractability of our political system that an inward and small scale focus might seem like the only possibility.  The structural side might have little patience for it might label as indulgent, it might prefer the measurability of a policy victory and it might keep a historical lens that upholds the forward motion of progressive public policy in our context.

Personally, I have little faith in the capacity of the state to make real change happen – even if it has made significant change possible during some of the most important moments in our history.  However, I do believe we have to pay attention to policy.  I don’t think self-development and a focus on community in the Northeast will do much to affect the policy of apartheid that has been put forward in Arizona.  But I still think the state follows, I think it is most important to actually change the hearts and minds of people in such a way that popular sentiment actually shifts and that it shifts in such a way that the state will not dare to ignore it.

This type of transformation, the social transformation that makes good policy possible and bad policy impossible, is itself rooted in a transformative (as opposed to self-indulgent) experience of community.  Solid human connections among people who dare to have the difficult conversations – the conversations that change us – are at the root of the sort of change that does not ignore the state, but wields it.