Tag Archive: The Christian Science Monitor

May 19, 2025

Together We Stand: Building a Bigger “Us” for Justice, Equity and Fairness

Image description: A colorful illustration of a pink, dark blue, and green mountain next to each other. The background is a pink sky with clouds and a dark orange sun. By Chloé via Unsplash.

On Friday, April 4th, Interaction Institute for Social Change was proud to partner with Food Solutions New England to host its Spring Gathering focused on “bridging work” to advance justice, equity, and fairness. Our guests for this gathering included Troy Sambajon, writer for The Christian Science Monitor, and Soma Saha, Executive Director of Wellbeing and Equity in the World. Between them, Troy and Soma focus their work on community-level efforts to create equitable change that prioritizes those who are least served/most marginalized while weaving stronger, more resilient social bonds that benefit all.

Our conversation centered on how certain people and places are defying mainstream media reports about how hopelessly divided we are as a country by reaching out to one another and engaging in creative “solutionizing” to address hunger, poverty, economic decline, and physical violence. The stories that were shared come from people and places that many might assume would be the last to do such work, including Israeli and Palestinian women and rural communities in the Deep South of the United States working with and on behalf of Black farmers. While not easy, there is no question that these efforts are happening. We at IISC also see this in the long-term consulting work we are doing in places like the Mississippi Delta, Fresno County, California (one of the most diverse areas in our country), and western Massachusetts, where a partnership focused on digital equity unites rural and urban communities and residents of all identities.

We might ask ourselves why these stories are not more widely shared. The answer seems to be that the dominant and evermore consolidated mainstream media tends to thrive on outrage (taking advantage of our innate negativity bias) and that wealthy owners maintain their position by fomenting division. Once you start following the money and information flows, the patterns become quite evident. We are being sold a story that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if we choose to believe it and give in to fear, isolation and ongoing misinformation campaigns.

We might also ask how the places that Troy and Soma highlighted, and where we at IISC are working, are cutting through the media morass and stereotypes. Actually, we did ask that! What we heard and shared is that people in those places are willing to reach out to one another. Somehow, they can see or remember that we are all connected. And they make space for actual conversation to happen. These spaces are characterized by care-full tending to processes that always put relationships first, and where listening is crucial. In many cases, this includes at least some meeting time over a meal where people can break bread together. These processes also emphasize that “seeing one another as the problem” is not going to get people very far. Rather, they invite curiosity about systems and structures that are influencing all of us, and often pitting us against each other.

We did not have time to get into much greater depth about the processes that Troy and Soma see being implemented, but from the IISC perspective, we can share some other tips that can help to make things smooth when engaging people in tense and potentially divisive situations:

  • Do some kind of bridging and outreach work in advance so that people are not cold-stepping into a shared space with one another. This could include interviews beforehand characterized by empathetic listening.
  • Pay attention to power dynamics, including who tends to be more central and more peripheral, can be important in terms of creating conditions for equitable engagement.
  • Make sure you have conversations in places that put people at ease and that are relatively easy to access. You might ask about this in those outreach and bridging interviews.
  • Have access to natural light and greenery when gathering in person to help settle people.
  • Sometimes playing music can be helpful, provided it does not stir up nervous systems too much and has something that everyone might appreciate (you can crowdsource requests in advance).
  • As a facilitator, you might invite a few people to share something that is personally meaningful to them at the beginning of a conversation. This could be a poem, a memory, an object, or a short story. See more about “The Welcome Table” that we have done at the beginning of the Network Leadership Institute we have facilitated with Food Solutions New England.
  • Speaking of story, we often find that having some time at the beginning of a gathering for people to share a bit of their story can help to highlight commonalities and get mirror neurons activated. You can read more about this here.
  • Move slowly and encourage people to be okay with silence
  • Invite people to pause between stimulus and response. This might look like asking people to take a step back and watch their reactions to what is happening in the course of the conversation.
  • Let people know that you are not asking everyone to believe the same thing or to force agreement. At the end of the day, behavior is what matters most, including how people treat one another. We can respect-fully agree to disagree on certain things and still live well together.

Most importantly, it feels foundational to continue to remember that most people share more in common than they do differences. As Mohawk elder Jake Swamp-Tekaronianeken once said, “In the end, everything works together.”

4 Comments
May 18, 2021

The Wisdom of W.A.I.T.ing: Mindful Sharing in a Network Age

Picture, “Waiting,” by Judy Dean, shared under provisions of Creative Commons Attribution license 2.0.

We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say.”

— Zeno of Citium

The other day I was reminded of the group working agreement “W.A.I.T.” (which stands for, “Why am I talking?”) as a guideline for people to be mindful of sharing air time in discussions. Since then I have been taking fresh note of my own inclinations and motives to not only talk in discussions, but also to share on social media. And as I have done this, I have also been more curious about what motivates others to share, verbally, in written and other forms. What are they thinking? Are they thinking about other people? If so, who? Have they thought through possible impacts? What do they care about?

I am a big fan of and subscriber to The Christian Science Monitor, which publishes a weekly digest of updates and perspectives on things happening around the globe, including (perhaps radical for these times) “bright spots” and “points of progress.” The editors and writers of Monitor articles also have a wonderful practice of publishing a little blurb for each offering under the heading “Why we wrote this.” How refreshing! What if all “news outlets” were to do this, or at least pause and ask this before writing and publishing/speaking?

And what if we were to do this in our different networks and communities? Might this help to break some of the spirals of othering and outrage (not to mention challenge the algorithms behind our growing social dilemma)? And shy of this, might the practice of W.A.I.T.ing or mindful and intentional sharing (viewed perhaps more generatively as “nourishing”) help people deliver on the promise of “network effects” to take communities and societies in a more prosocial direction?

I am currently working with two organizations over the course of 2021 to help staff and partners develop more networked ways of thinking and acting/being. Recently we had a discussion about how to keep the staff more up to date with respect to one another’s network weaving activities (connections made, crucial take-aways, immediate next steps) and also share other interesting content and connections. Trying to strike the right balance between radio silence and deluge, we started exploring how implementing the W.A.I.T/S. (Why am I talking/sharing?) prime might help. Along the way, a couple of people said that W.A.I.T/S. might also stand for “Why aren’t I talking/sharing?” and encourage the otherwise less inclined (for various reasons) to reconsider. This is stimulating rich conversation about how to tend and modulate important flows in various systems (organizational, community, school, etc.) to support learning, resilience, alignment, equity, emergence, coordinated action …

All this to say, whatever our goal(s) may be, it could be important to … W.A.I.T for it. This is how less conscious and helpful sharing (and silence) might become a practice of care-full curation (making thoughtful offers to and requests – sharing and caring can also include asking questions! – of one’s communities).

1 Comment