Beyond Left or Right

Add a Comment

Comment by maggie b 1 hour ago

Here is a great article by George Monbiot. His blog is a usually a good read, and here he talks about 'restrainers' and 'expanders' being the next stage beyond left and right. Take a look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/14/climate-change-battle-redefine-humanity

Comment by maggie b on December 3, 2009 at 2:00pm

I have also being do a lot of research on future/emerging trends..for those of you who haven't heard of it, here is a link to a great magazine with some interesting articles that include active citizenship and governance
http://www.wfs.org/futurist.htm

Comment by maggie b on December 3, 2009 at 1:58pm

A colleague of mine recently attended some workshops in Sociocracy, am providing a link as a resource to add to discussion: http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html.

Comment by Manu Caddie on July 22, 2009 at 9:02pm

I think the deliberative democracy movement can be instructive here - though interesting to note some commentators suggest that as more people with diverse/opposing views are included in decision-making and discussions the rate of participation declines, more homogeneous communities have more political conversations because its easier to talk about issues with people who are more similar than different to ourselves. Interesting too that the working classes are exposed to more diverse political perspectives as people with more money have more choice about who they spend time with and effectively insulate themselves from too many conversations with people who have opposing viewpoints.

Diana Mutz's book "Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy" was helpful for me on this stuff.

Comment by lee0007 on July 22, 2009 at 6:40pm

@Richard I like your differentiation of collaboration and consensus.

Being Maori, I was raised with a cultural notion of collective and collaborative action. As a child my mum and her brother and sisters would spend hours developing their collective world view. To onlookers it could have seemed that they simply talked and argued, often, about the same issues.

Yet, such a simplistic point of view belies the nuances of tribal etiquette that are integral to creating collective purpose. Simple rules that can and should be applied throughout society. For instance:-

1)When making a decision or deciding on a course of action that affects others, everyone is allowed the chance to voice their opinion.

Inevitably multiple opinions leads to conflict but it is important to recognise this as part of the process, rather than a problem. The discussion should continue for as long as takes for everyone to be heard.

2) It’s not about majority rule, tribal communities were never a democracy. Leaders must make decisions for others to follow.

Followers need not necessarily agree because in having their voice heard and in listening to others there now exists a shared understanding of why the decision is made...

My perspective on collective collaboration is something I recently discussed in a blog on collaborative communities and tribal etiquette

Comment by Richard on July 17, 2009 at 4:24pm

I think we in the in the environmental, spiritual and social justice fields spend far too much time actively seeking consensus and not enough time actively collaberating. In my opinion there is a BIG difference between the two.

Consensus is fundmentally process driven, it diseminates power equally among individual egos within a group to set direction . The reflective, systemic and strategic thinking is absorbed into the process of achieving consensus and repeatedly returns to that process to maintain the consensus, which is difficult because everyone needs to agree. In such a scenario, I would argue, the desired outcome of the group often gets lost in this process focus.

Collaberation, on the other hand, coaleces individual egos to give power to the group and is therefore outcome driven.The reflective, systemic and strategic thinking can then be focussed on actions that move the group toward their desired outcome.

The difference is found in the mental modes we use when we engage in groups. I think the difference being is that consensus is an attempt at non-heirachical enegagement whereas often in collaberative ventures there is an accepted heirachy at play.

There is a fine line here to balance but I would argue we have moved to far to the process of consensus, when really we need to be focussing on the outcomes of collaberation.

My other thought is that the power to create change toward sustainability is not so much in the arena of politics but more so in that other driver of unsustainability, the economy. After all, politics these days is more about economic management than anything else and every time we spend our money we are essentialy casting a vote. .

Frankly I think we need to find ways to recapture the invisible hand of the market, simply becasue the power lies in economy and as Adam Smith suggested it is meant to be the consumer that weilds the power.

Once again I think collaberation is the key to unlocking that power. Community Supported Agriculture is an excellent example of the consumer, using their spending power to achieve, environmental and social outcomes they desire. Community Banks and Credit Unions are another example. In the US and in Scandanavian countries collaberative models are appearing around energy, where people are pooling funds to invest in renewables that power their communites and and or their cars. The list goes on. In these "Community Supported" scenarios the consumer steers the market, not the market steering the consumer as is the case at the moment.

Link that type of collaberation with collaberative tools for political lobbying such as Avaaz and Stand Up and we do have a significant driver for change, but once again it requires collaberation, not just consensus.

Love to hear people's thoughts.

Cheers
Richard

Comment by maggie b on July 15, 2009 at 4:43pm

Very clear to me, thanks Georgina!. Please forgive the following rather excited and wordy response this has inspired

I strongly believe that one of the easiest ways to achieve personal growth in this day and age is not the old fashioned workshop, but through engaging with, and actively learning from, as many different ‘other’ realities as possible. And now, as never before, (thanks to technology) we are able to do this in many different ways - digital and physical. Old borders and categorisation systems are crumbling, and opportunities to meet people, and groups, who force you to confront deeply held beliefs and assumptions are everywhere.

Engaging with difference builds a number of very useful cognitive functions, including the ability to critically reflect, to think systemically and to envision new futures. All of which organisations such as UNESCO agree are fundamental capacities that are needed to effectively engage with complex issues such as climate change and global justice.

It astounds me how little evidence there is of reflective, systemic and strategic thinking there is within organisations operating in the environmental, spiritual and social justice fields. While promoting peace and love “out in the world”, they are often fighting tooth and nail within their own organisations and within their sectors. While promoting long term views about the environment they are lax in their strategic long term financial planning and still deeply dependent on the government, AND to top this off they are happy to burn their staff while doing the business of promoting sustainability.

After many years of working with different liberal/spiritual organisations and communities, and seeing this pattern over and over again, I have found only a few notable exceptions to this norm. I don’t have a lot of patience for the “woe is me my funding has unexpectedly been cut and we will have to stop doing our work” mentality. How irresponsible to be in a position for this to happen in a time when our very survival is at stake!

I, unlike most of the people I speak to these days, believe the current round of funding cuts have merit. Yes there are a bunch of very worthwhile organisations, and areas that are very short-sightedly loosing support (health, environment, adult education being just a few). But there are also a huge number of organisations who are doing exactly the same work as each other but are not collaborating due to ego (“I want to have my OWN organisation to do this not follow someone else”), personality conflicts and/or ideological differences. There are also a lot of organisations who are ineffective. They will be culled, or forced to collaborate with other groups for pragmatic reasons. They will also have to step up and live the values they have been preaching to others for many years.

Welcome responses from others in the group to the above……

PS: Paul Verilio has some interesting stuff on how technology has lead to a (perceived) deficit of time which leads to short-termist thinking, superficial relationship etc. Worth while looking him up.

Comment by Georgina Morrison on July 15, 2009 at 2:26pm

From somebody who is relatively new to the world of Green groups all of kinds, it astounds me that many of these intelligent and well-meaning people distance themselves from other groups.
I belong to a growing number of groups and networks and gain value insight from all of them, the networking and information sharing is so exciting and valuable to what I believe.

I firmly have come to the conclusion that we have to work together. The non-partisan community groups must grow and must do what they do the best. The Green Party must keep doing what they do best. And all the little groups must keep on doing what they do. But the longer we create splinters between us instead of a healthy relationship, those who are greedy and powerful need not fear our green-minded revolution because separated it will not happen.

If we have common goals then no matter the journey to get us there we should unite and get over our differences of choice of group. Because the fight is too important to lose.

Just my idealistic views... feel free to disagree.

Beyond all that... Billy, I think technology is certainly economically aligned given that wealth gives you an access to technology we couldn't dream of as kids, ipods, laptops etc...

In saying that Bill McKibben mentioned a Kenyan farmer who saw the 350 video on his phone in the middle of a desert and knew what to do, so perhaps it is changing. And in Iran and China, Twitter infuriates the establishment.

This ponderance reminds me of a friend studying Environmental architecture in London where half of the students believe that technology is the saviour and the other half believe going back to basics will do the same job. The obvious seems a combination of these and so maybe in our efforts to be environmental we remain open to an awareness and the effect of what we are using, purchasing and who we might be supporting.

I hope this actually makes sense out of my head as well as it did inside! :)

Comment by Billy Matheson on June 23, 2009 at 12:44pm

Hi all,

Good to notice that decision making processes can transcend/encompass left and right politics.

My next question is whether technology is politically aligned?
I used to think refrigerators were servants of western imperialism... I still suspect that the environment paid the real cost of my laptop.

But it feels like there is something changing because of the tools available at this time. The web seems to be collapsing many assumed dichotomies (like distributed power and concentrated power).

Welcome to the "both"/ "and" world.

Thought for the day:
"We're all in this together"

Lunch time!
Billy

Ps: Check out the latest from Clay Shirky:

Comment by Kath Dewar on June 23, 2009 at 11:24am

Quoting Billy:
"Where does a process like consensus decision making sit on the political compass?"

And Maggie:
"By way of balance see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator"

My suggestion would be consensus approaches would be down the bottom of the quadrants as they disseminate power - but could be anywhere left-right depending on the group consensus was sought within.

Whereas benevolent dictatorship would be up the top of the quadrants but again could be anywhere left-right, depending on the left-right orientation of the dictator.

What do people think?

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last