By Curtis Ogden
In an article in the most recent issue of The Nonprofit Quarterly, Margaret Wheatley speaks to the need for greater trust in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors in order to move through the current challenging financial times as well as to address the complex social and environmental problems we collectively face (see “An Era of Powerful Possibility”). She writes that accountability measures prescribed by funders have often tended to place undue onus on nonprofit leadership and demand excessive reporting and unrealistic measurement systems from staff. In essence, she says that we have had our eyes on the wrong ball.
Instead, what the times indicate if anything is that we need to shift our attention to our own flawed thinking. What we suffer from most profoundly at this point in time is an acute case of uncertainty. What got us into this mess? What does the future hold? What should we be doing now? Our resulting and understandable anxiety can tend to push us into a mad search for answers, and even push us backwards to what we perceive having worked in the past, or worked in a particular situation. The unfortunate part of this reaction is that we can end up concocting or transferring simple or simplistic responses to complicated or complex situations, which inclines us towards mechanistic, overly controlled, expert-driven and ultimately irrelevant and damaging approaches.
A good example of this is the documented case of genetically engineered food in developing countries, intended to alleviate malnutrition. While perhaps well intentioned (and with respect to some parties there are questions about underlying virtue), this approach has not had an impact because it has applied a simple solution to a complex situation. As conservation biologist David Ehrenfeld has written (Becoming Good Ancestors), many people are hungry not because their rice lacks beta carotene, but because they lack a diverse diet. They are suffering from a lack of biodiversity, loss of traditional sustainable know-how and practice, and economic systems with perverse incentives. The blind drive towards genetically engineered mono-cropping not only misses the point, but can make matters worse for both people and planet.
So what are we to do? First of all, recognize that many if not most of the problems we face are systemic and complex in nature. They are both bigger than us and include us. This just might inspire a deeper sense of not only realism, but also humility and responsibility. From here we might recognize the deep call to reach out, to bridge boundaries, to get curious, to listen, to bring our experience and knowledge to the table with an abiding desire to be of service . . . and trust. We must trust one another, whether community member or funder or politician or “expert.” This would seem to be a core lesson from Obama’s strategy and ultimate victory. Trust is the basis of building effective networks. It is also a key lever in overcoming fear and triggering the kind of creativity we so desperately need. Perhaps our most important challenge is to apply this ethic of trust to the natural world, from which many of us are so alienated to the point of fear. If we do not successfully reacquaint ourselves with our very life support system, trust its wisdom, and listen to the warnings and important lessons it has to impart, well . . . then pass me that bowl of rice.
Showing posts with label social change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social change. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
Our Kids Killing Each Other
I don’t have a TV, and so I’ve been catching up on “The Wire” through Netflix. The stuff is in my head, it’s an overload of brilliant television, too much violence and a whole lot of reality. This is the place from which I open the papers today and learn what I already now – our kids are killing each other , Boston made the top 10, we are number 6 on the list. The shit is painful, and what’s even more frustrating is that there is nothing new to recommend. Papers are talking about the same old thing – “restoring police officers in the streets and creating social programs for poor youths.” Is that really what’s going to do it for us?
Look, maybe at some level these are things that will help, but the very best youth programs that I know can only serve a precious few, and by all means, let’s help these programs where we can. And cops, well, that’s a whole other story, I do watch the Wire after all, and before that, I knew about Foucault, power, and the dead end of “discipline and punish.” The “pragmatic” in me likes things like the “Shot Spotter” system, an acoustic technology that lets police rapidly intersect a shooter as soon as the weapon is fired. It works after the fact, but it gets to a perpetrator, but seriously now, is this the best we have? Feels like the opposite of a root cause.
We can talk about breakdowns in the family, racism, structural oppression, and a nation state that bails out bankers but lets its poor people die. We can talk about all of these things and we would be absolutely right, but our kids are still killing each other. There is something that is terribly counter-evolutionary about a society where kids kill one another, something feels terribly backward when locking up our kids becomes the state’s option – ask the folk at “The Gathering for Justice,” they can tell you what we are doing to our kids – I am blessed to work with them.
Truth is that I’m stumped by this one, grappling with it, feeling the pain of the whole thing, trying to open up and see what’s here, be bold in this search for something new. I’m seduced by Meg Wheatley’s proposition that “whatever the problem, community is the answer.” I’m moved by the idea that it has to be organic, and that there is little an outsider can do, be it state policy or charity. But in that little that we can do, we have to be incredibly precise, clear in our intention and unbelievably open to the fact that we don’t know.
I do know we have to stand with whoever is inside the thing, and trying to do something about it, trying to shift their own self first, not playing the name game first, the police game, the 501(c)3 game or the who is the best dressed pastor game. This has to happen somehow else. I’m going to keep messing with this one, stay with it as long as it takes, there is an answer somewhere and it has to do with heart, with authenticity and opportunity, appreciation, innovation, connection, it has to do with a willingness to truly take the time, it has to do with the fact that this thing we are looking at is not outside of our selves, this shit is real, and that’s how it hurts.
Look, maybe at some level these are things that will help, but the very best youth programs that I know can only serve a precious few, and by all means, let’s help these programs where we can. And cops, well, that’s a whole other story, I do watch the Wire after all, and before that, I knew about Foucault, power, and the dead end of “discipline and punish.” The “pragmatic” in me likes things like the “Shot Spotter” system, an acoustic technology that lets police rapidly intersect a shooter as soon as the weapon is fired. It works after the fact, but it gets to a perpetrator, but seriously now, is this the best we have? Feels like the opposite of a root cause.
We can talk about breakdowns in the family, racism, structural oppression, and a nation state that bails out bankers but lets its poor people die. We can talk about all of these things and we would be absolutely right, but our kids are still killing each other. There is something that is terribly counter-evolutionary about a society where kids kill one another, something feels terribly backward when locking up our kids becomes the state’s option – ask the folk at “The Gathering for Justice,” they can tell you what we are doing to our kids – I am blessed to work with them.
Truth is that I’m stumped by this one, grappling with it, feeling the pain of the whole thing, trying to open up and see what’s here, be bold in this search for something new. I’m seduced by Meg Wheatley’s proposition that “whatever the problem, community is the answer.” I’m moved by the idea that it has to be organic, and that there is little an outsider can do, be it state policy or charity. But in that little that we can do, we have to be incredibly precise, clear in our intention and unbelievably open to the fact that we don’t know.
I do know we have to stand with whoever is inside the thing, and trying to do something about it, trying to shift their own self first, not playing the name game first, the police game, the 501(c)3 game or the who is the best dressed pastor game. This has to happen somehow else. I’m going to keep messing with this one, stay with it as long as it takes, there is an answer somewhere and it has to do with heart, with authenticity and opportunity, appreciation, innovation, connection, it has to do with a willingness to truly take the time, it has to do with the fact that this thing we are looking at is not outside of our selves, this shit is real, and that’s how it hurts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)