Yesterday, at the last day of the FIC's fall organizational meetings, we spent a whole session exploring the market for community in today's troubled economic times.
We began the conversation by revisiting the work the board had done four years ago, when we devoted four sessions to a strategic process called scenario planning. In essence, we discussed where we were in 2004, and where we thought we were likely to go over the next five years—in broad strokes. At the time, we decided there were two main things to pay attention to, which represented forks in the road. One was whether or not there would be serious economic and/or environmental upheaval. The other was whether society would have a competitive or cooperative response.
By combining these two bifurcations, we had four possible futures:
1. Dog Eat Cat
This was the future where crisis occurred and there was a competitive response. It was the nightmare scenario and pretty bleak.
2. Boil the Frog
This future avoided a catastrophe, yet was a continuation of adversarial politics and no significant shift in policies or awareness.
3. Camel Latte
This was the future without a fulminating crisis, yet a definite shift to more cooperative and collaborative politics. There would be an increased awareness of the issues and constructive responses. (The name is a spinoff from the "Camelot" moniker given to the Kennedy administration in the early '60s, and the aura of hope that accompanied it.)
4. Phoenix Rising
This was the future that included a crisis and a positive, constructive response.
Today, we are close to the five-year point we were trying to peer ahead to see accurately in spring 2004. For the most part, Scenario 2 prevailed. At the same time, we agreed that the following was also true today:
o The Presidential election just ahead represents a clear choice in competitive/cooperative paths. Obama is offering hope for a sea change; McCain is offering more of the same.
o We are significantly closer to the precipice of both economic and environmental crisis (and for those who have lost their jobs or their homes, the crisis is already upon them).
o There is significantly greater awareness of the challenges looming, and even pockets of positive local initiatives where citizens are taking control of their lives in hopeful ways (for example, City Repair in Portland OR).
What, we wondered, were the opportunities and challenges for FIC in this environment? As the conversation progressed, we found it useful to think in terms of four major ways in which people would respond to hard times:
A. Widespread despair and loss of hope.
B. Preservation of hope, yet without structural support or organization. People are unsure where or how to begin.
C. Some significant constructive efforts at building a positive future, yet efforts are noticeably incomplete and with self-awareness that more is needed.
D. Wholistic responses that manifest a vibrant, cooperative culture, with all the essential elements present.
While this is a simplistic sorting and it's obvious that people or groups could easily fall somewhere between one of these four nodes, it provids a useful framework. Wherever people find themselves on this spectrum, FIC's job is to help them move along toward D, as gently and as surely as we can manage.
There will not be much we can do for A's (where there won't be interest in what we have to offer). With B's and C's, there will be some willingness (even eagerness) for assistance in building capacity to better respond to challenges. This will mean bringing people together, offering links to information, providing technical assistance, and teaching skills. Some of this will best be delivered through events; some of it will be met through a more robust website, and responsiveness to email inquiries.
With D's, we can learn what others have accomplished and help make those lessons available to all the B's and C's out there.
FIC's specialties are two:
1) Distilling what's being learned in the cauldrons of intentional community about how to build cooperative culture; about how to make inclusive, energy-building decisions; about how to be real and effective at the same time.
2) Helping groups make common cause, without homogenizing everyone's identity or mission.
In the coming times, there will be plenty to do.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Demand for Community in the Hard Days Ahead
del.icio.us
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi there Laird! I hope you are well.
While this is a simplistic sorting and it's obvious that people or groups could easily fall somewhere between one of these four nodes, it provids a useful framework. Wherever people find themselves on this spectrum, FIC's job is to help them move along toward D, as gently and as surely as we can manage.
Indeed. I think the framework sort of conflates "level of hopefulness" with "level of motivation to take action," which I don't think consider accurate. Hope can be a powerful motivator. It can also be an excuse not to change. While despair and nihilism are certainly paralyzing, false hope is equally useless.
For example, although Obama is worlds better than his main opposition and will be receiving my vote, the level of hope he inspires in some folks strikes me as borderline ridiculous. He's basically a moderate, and he's already shown a willingness to break principled promises (see: telecom immunity). Some of the energy currently being spent feeling hopeful would be better spent making demands -- something citizens can only do when they're not smitten.
All of which is to say, the "hope" thing cuts both ways, and isn't a good measure of how willing and able someone is to take action, nor of how informed she is. Certainly some Obama fans would feel less hopeful if they knew more about the coming climate crisis and how inadequate Obama's stated policies are. I note that your own ideal -- option D -- says nothing about how hopeful individuals feel, and everything about the action they take.
Post a Comment