Learning, not only in schools and universities, but in all organisations, can only be advanced through cooperative enquiry. Any individual seeking to take in information in isolation inevitably gets stuck in the solipsist trap of not knowing if the information is valid or not. If everything is judged by oneself alone, there is no way to tell when one has judged correctly.
Organisations need educative collaboration because it is when their members habitually share and cross-check ideas with each other, and with those outside, that continuous learning can be sustained. Both the complacency of sticking with what one is familiar with and the unreliability of counting on new claims for the sake of novelty, should be held in check by a culture of seeking, digesting, and reviewing what is put forward as knowledge.
With a cultural norm that celebrates the quest for understanding, and practical arrangements that facilitate discussions to clarify proposed ideas, a business, a network, or society more widely, will benefit from a constant inflow of critical and informed thinking. This will more readily bring to light mistaken or outmoded notions and direct attention to relevant development in any field that can help improve performance.
Organisations that do not promote educative collaboration run three risks that can seriously undermine their own future. First, individuals who feel they are judged on what they find by themselves rather than in collaboration with colleagues, are more likely to keep their exploration to themselves. This reduces cross-fertilisation and cuts down opportunities to build long-term partnerships that strengthen collective learning capability.
Secondly, instead of regarding the pointing out of misinterpretations or flawed evidence put forward by others as a mutually helpful exercise, it can come to be seen as inherently antagonistic. Some may under such circumstances prefer to hold back and not say anything lest well-meant comments are frowned upon as self-serving intervention. And there will be those who are tempted to discredit the findings of others in order to secure greater recognition for what they put forward themselves.
Thirdly, lacking encouragement and support to engage in cooperative learning, individuals fall behind their counterparts in other organisations, where a premium is placed on everyone helping each other learn more that enhances their shared understanding and boosts the capability of their institutions.
Organisations that invest in educative collaboration are more likely to reap the benefit of accelerated learning because people are encouraged to share and check each others’ ideas for necessary revisions and possible improvements. Moreover, the critical understanding developed through the open and thoughtful exchange of interpretations and arguments builds intellectual relationships and bonds of trust so that the applications of ideas are readily tried out, and more cooperatively adapted in the light of feedback gathered from as wide a circle of participants as possible.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
Is there a culture of lifelong learning?
Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
Are members detached from thinking through why or how things are done in their group?
Do they routinely accept or reject ideas & instructions without giving them due consideration?
Is there a notable lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
Monday, January 4, 2016
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Nimble Membership
Every organisation, from a small business to a large nation, relies on its members collaborating to secure what is sought by those members. It is vital that it is capable of handling the membership issue adroitly and effectively. An organisation that does not have enough members to meet its objectives, has too many that it cannot meet their needs, or worst of all, loses track of who is or is not a member, is heading towards a crisis.
A nimble membership system is essential because even with a small group, circumstances can change and the group may need to adapt to continue its core mission or meet new demands. And the addition or loss of just a few members in a small group can have a proportionately large impact compared with the same numbers being altered in a large organisation.
But while a small, local group can maintain relatively close relations with all its members, and people have a good understanding of what each other does, potential remoteness is a problem that can grow exponentially for organisations the size of a large institution or a national government.
To ensure an organisation has a good grasp of who is and is not a member, and why that status should change or not under different conditions, a membership system should be responsive enough to address four key issues.
First, is there to be a core membership? Different nations still debate who residing in them should be granted membership (citizenship). Some accept that those born in it will qualify, while others maintain that it may not be enough. Similar questions can be raised about businesses that share their proceeds with the families of some of their members but not others. And are there categories of founding or life membership that carry with them particular entitlements? How are these reciprocally agreed with other members?
Secondly, there is the question of new members to be brought in. Under what conditions should additional members be considered, and what criteria will they need to meet? What offers and requirements will form the terms to be presented to new members? Not addressing these matters thoroughly and transparently can destabilise any organisation. A business may fail to recruit the talent it needs or it may bring in unsuitable people as a result of the bias of the ones taking recruitment decisions. A country may be short of workers for certain roles because the government of the day refuses to allow them in, or it may be damaged by an influx of exploiters who buy up valuable assets and leave existing members vulnerable.
Thirdly, the criteria for exit should be carefully considered and settled. This applies to voluntary requests to leave (can members just leave? do they have to give notice? what can they take with them?), and to involuntary exclusion (sacking from a firm, redundancy arrangements, sent to prison, exile from a country, deportation of those with temporary membership, etc).
Lastly, group-wide alterations to membership are often overlooked until they arise. When may a group dissolve itself, join through a merger or a federated arrangement with one or more other groups, or disengage from a larger group to form a new smaller group? These changes affect all who work in the affected businesses, and have vast implications for those living in countries that may undergo restructuring of sovereign powers (e.g., Scotland leaving the UK, the UK leaving the European Union, or Scotland joining the EU after becoming independent from the UK).
In the context of synetopia, a membership system can only deal with all the above issues if it takes on board the need to establish a shared mission, embed mutuality, and the other key elements involving collaborative learning and democratic decision-making, etc. In practice, all too often attention is deflected to rushed debates about these fundamental issues, when the focus should be on using the criteria drawn up with due deliberations to act swiftly to respond to demands for membership changes.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members?
Do members know what is expected of them individually?
Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Are there too few or too many members to function effectively?
How confident are current members about the reliability of the process of accepting/excluding people as members?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
A nimble membership system is essential because even with a small group, circumstances can change and the group may need to adapt to continue its core mission or meet new demands. And the addition or loss of just a few members in a small group can have a proportionately large impact compared with the same numbers being altered in a large organisation.
But while a small, local group can maintain relatively close relations with all its members, and people have a good understanding of what each other does, potential remoteness is a problem that can grow exponentially for organisations the size of a large institution or a national government.
To ensure an organisation has a good grasp of who is and is not a member, and why that status should change or not under different conditions, a membership system should be responsive enough to address four key issues.
First, is there to be a core membership? Different nations still debate who residing in them should be granted membership (citizenship). Some accept that those born in it will qualify, while others maintain that it may not be enough. Similar questions can be raised about businesses that share their proceeds with the families of some of their members but not others. And are there categories of founding or life membership that carry with them particular entitlements? How are these reciprocally agreed with other members?
Secondly, there is the question of new members to be brought in. Under what conditions should additional members be considered, and what criteria will they need to meet? What offers and requirements will form the terms to be presented to new members? Not addressing these matters thoroughly and transparently can destabilise any organisation. A business may fail to recruit the talent it needs or it may bring in unsuitable people as a result of the bias of the ones taking recruitment decisions. A country may be short of workers for certain roles because the government of the day refuses to allow them in, or it may be damaged by an influx of exploiters who buy up valuable assets and leave existing members vulnerable.
Thirdly, the criteria for exit should be carefully considered and settled. This applies to voluntary requests to leave (can members just leave? do they have to give notice? what can they take with them?), and to involuntary exclusion (sacking from a firm, redundancy arrangements, sent to prison, exile from a country, deportation of those with temporary membership, etc).
Lastly, group-wide alterations to membership are often overlooked until they arise. When may a group dissolve itself, join through a merger or a federated arrangement with one or more other groups, or disengage from a larger group to form a new smaller group? These changes affect all who work in the affected businesses, and have vast implications for those living in countries that may undergo restructuring of sovereign powers (e.g., Scotland leaving the UK, the UK leaving the European Union, or Scotland joining the EU after becoming independent from the UK).
In the context of synetopia, a membership system can only deal with all the above issues if it takes on board the need to establish a shared mission, embed mutuality, and the other key elements involving collaborative learning and democratic decision-making, etc. In practice, all too often attention is deflected to rushed debates about these fundamental issues, when the focus should be on using the criteria drawn up with due deliberations to act swiftly to respond to demands for membership changes.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members?
Do members know what is expected of them individually?
Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Are there too few or too many members to function effectively?
How confident are current members about the reliability of the process of accepting/excluding people as members?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
Saturday, January 2, 2016
You-&-I Mutuality
For any large group to function well, a small number have to be entrusted with its coordination and take decisions when it is not feasible to consult everyone involved. This has in some quarters given rise to the false dichotomy that offers either a ‘No One but Me’ individualism or a ‘Only We Matter’ collectivism. The former, in an anarchistic or libertarian guise, supposes that one can join in or pull out solely as when it suits one. If everyone follows the same approach, no organisation can endure as rule breakers simply declare they no longer want to sign up to the rule that now inconveniences them. The latter invokes ‘we’ as some kind of absolute prerogative that can override everyone’s autonomy, when in fact a small clique set themselves up as the will of the people.
The relationship between the members of any group, from a residents’ association through a business to an entire country, can only be sustained if it is based on genuine mutuality. This applies to all regardless of what position they may hold in the group. People have to agree to rules and procedures, and to entrust certain issues to be dealt with by specific experts and decision-makers. But they will only abide by the outcomes if they are confident that what are put in place respect their interests equally, and their support for others will be reciprocated.
This does not mean that everyone must have exactly the same responsibilities or the same rewards. It does mean that the criteria for being given different responsibilities and the rewards/penalties for fulfilling/breaching them are set to everyone’s satisfaction and will be applied without exception. In other words, any one who best meets the agreed requirements to be, for example, a surgeon or a supervisor, should be given the position in question.
As for the rewards and penalties, these should be subject to open deliberations so that it is clear that there is no privileging of some positions with disproportionate rewards and no disadvantaging of certain types of non-compliance with excessive penalties.
Worker cooperatives and companies like Semco have shown how people, when given the opportunity to consider the most appropriate reward differentials to maximise the overall benefits of their joint enterprise, will deliberate and come up with a sensible scale for their respective organisation. There is no universal formula, but a process grounded on mutual respect that leads to different roles and rewards backed by the informed support of all concerned.
Similarly, whereas the populist media may stir up public demands for harsher punishment for all kinds of offence, deliberative engagement of people in thinking through crime, punishment, and their implications for the wellbeing of society, has consistently led to a more thoughtful differentiation of severe punishment for crimes with vicious intent and little repentance, a focus on rehabilitation for offenders who seek a real chance to be respected citizens, and detection and warning techniques that are more likely to deter than pointlessly harsh treatment after the event.
Those who seek unwarranted rewards for themselves or vindictive penalties for others threaten reciprocal relations and undermine the organisations they are part of. Any effective institution will establish cultural norms to warn against such inclinations, and put in place rules and enforcement to prevent such behaviour from spreading beyond the odd occurrence.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits?
Are members involved in an informed manner themselves in determining what counts as mutual expectations?
How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reciprocally and reliably?
Do members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group?
Are there members who are marginalised and given little say as to what they are expected to do or what they will get in return?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
The relationship between the members of any group, from a residents’ association through a business to an entire country, can only be sustained if it is based on genuine mutuality. This applies to all regardless of what position they may hold in the group. People have to agree to rules and procedures, and to entrust certain issues to be dealt with by specific experts and decision-makers. But they will only abide by the outcomes if they are confident that what are put in place respect their interests equally, and their support for others will be reciprocated.
This does not mean that everyone must have exactly the same responsibilities or the same rewards. It does mean that the criteria for being given different responsibilities and the rewards/penalties for fulfilling/breaching them are set to everyone’s satisfaction and will be applied without exception. In other words, any one who best meets the agreed requirements to be, for example, a surgeon or a supervisor, should be given the position in question.
As for the rewards and penalties, these should be subject to open deliberations so that it is clear that there is no privileging of some positions with disproportionate rewards and no disadvantaging of certain types of non-compliance with excessive penalties.
Worker cooperatives and companies like Semco have shown how people, when given the opportunity to consider the most appropriate reward differentials to maximise the overall benefits of their joint enterprise, will deliberate and come up with a sensible scale for their respective organisation. There is no universal formula, but a process grounded on mutual respect that leads to different roles and rewards backed by the informed support of all concerned.
Similarly, whereas the populist media may stir up public demands for harsher punishment for all kinds of offence, deliberative engagement of people in thinking through crime, punishment, and their implications for the wellbeing of society, has consistently led to a more thoughtful differentiation of severe punishment for crimes with vicious intent and little repentance, a focus on rehabilitation for offenders who seek a real chance to be respected citizens, and detection and warning techniques that are more likely to deter than pointlessly harsh treatment after the event.
Those who seek unwarranted rewards for themselves or vindictive penalties for others threaten reciprocal relations and undermine the organisations they are part of. Any effective institution will establish cultural norms to warn against such inclinations, and put in place rules and enforcement to prevent such behaviour from spreading beyond the odd occurrence.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits?
Are members involved in an informed manner themselves in determining what counts as mutual expectations?
How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reciprocally and reliably?
Do members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group?
Are there members who are marginalised and given little say as to what they are expected to do or what they will get in return?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
Friday, January 1, 2016
Shared Mission
A shared mission is required to unite people in any social organisation. It is an essential pre-condition for securing their commitment to work together while dispelling any fear or suspicion that any of them may be merely used for the benefit of others.
Alas, too many of those in leadership positions think they can define the mission of the public or private institution they run without involving others. But since people come together to meet challenges that are more effectively tackled by a group, the appropriateness of any arrangements set up for their joint working can only be judged with reference to their effectiveness in meeting those challenges.
That is why proposals by authoritarian thinkers from Han Fei to Hobbes are self-defeating. When people need to come together to put an end to “continual fear and danger of violent death”, or prevent life from being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, the last thing they want is to hand power to an absolute ruler who may then without constraint threaten and oppress others. It is also why it is untenable for the likes of Rousseau and Marx to suggest that people can leave their fate to some sagacious lawgiver/vanguard leader to discern the ‘general will’ or ‘dialectics of history’ without being subject to the public’s ongoing and critical examination. Similarly, Locke, Smith, and others who think that people can be left to bargain amongst themselves until they have a system they can sign up to, fail to see that those with more power than others would use it to pressure the rest to accept less-than-optimal deals.
Any arrangement, which fails to ensure that all involved are equally respected for their participation and none can wield excessive power to twist others’ arms into joining in on disadvantaged terms, simply falls at the first hurdle. This applies to government, voluntary or business organisations.
If no shared mission can be defined, then the group should be dissolved lest it continues for the benefit of a few who gain from the those who contribute for relatively little in return. On the other hand, if there are challenges that can only be met through a shared mission, it would be remiss not to form a group capable of undertaking that mission. Indeed the folly of ignoring the prospect of greater strengths from numbers has been borne out by countless small, isolated tribes and businesses being wiped out, while more robustly organised groups march on.
It is tempting to dismiss the call for solidarity in joint action as idealistic, but it is in fact naïve in the extreme to suppose that any social, economic or political organisation can ever succeed without it. Those that seek to function by imposing submission breed dissent that will destroy its foundation. Those that profess a common purpose but fail to engage everyone in its pursuit will disintegrate through the spread of indifference.
Only those that provide the structure for people to identify specific common concerns and collaborate to carry out their genuinely shared mission can flourish. The success of every firm, association and government depends on it striving to improve continuously by this core yardstick for joint working.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members?
How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Does the way the shared mission is applied to changing circumstances reflect the informed concerns of the members?
Are there signs that members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure?
What proportion of members are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
Alas, too many of those in leadership positions think they can define the mission of the public or private institution they run without involving others. But since people come together to meet challenges that are more effectively tackled by a group, the appropriateness of any arrangements set up for their joint working can only be judged with reference to their effectiveness in meeting those challenges.
That is why proposals by authoritarian thinkers from Han Fei to Hobbes are self-defeating. When people need to come together to put an end to “continual fear and danger of violent death”, or prevent life from being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, the last thing they want is to hand power to an absolute ruler who may then without constraint threaten and oppress others. It is also why it is untenable for the likes of Rousseau and Marx to suggest that people can leave their fate to some sagacious lawgiver/vanguard leader to discern the ‘general will’ or ‘dialectics of history’ without being subject to the public’s ongoing and critical examination. Similarly, Locke, Smith, and others who think that people can be left to bargain amongst themselves until they have a system they can sign up to, fail to see that those with more power than others would use it to pressure the rest to accept less-than-optimal deals.
Any arrangement, which fails to ensure that all involved are equally respected for their participation and none can wield excessive power to twist others’ arms into joining in on disadvantaged terms, simply falls at the first hurdle. This applies to government, voluntary or business organisations.
If no shared mission can be defined, then the group should be dissolved lest it continues for the benefit of a few who gain from the those who contribute for relatively little in return. On the other hand, if there are challenges that can only be met through a shared mission, it would be remiss not to form a group capable of undertaking that mission. Indeed the folly of ignoring the prospect of greater strengths from numbers has been borne out by countless small, isolated tribes and businesses being wiped out, while more robustly organised groups march on.
It is tempting to dismiss the call for solidarity in joint action as idealistic, but it is in fact naïve in the extreme to suppose that any social, economic or political organisation can ever succeed without it. Those that seek to function by imposing submission breed dissent that will destroy its foundation. Those that profess a common purpose but fail to engage everyone in its pursuit will disintegrate through the spread of indifference.
Only those that provide the structure for people to identify specific common concerns and collaborate to carry out their genuinely shared mission can flourish. The success of every firm, association and government depends on it striving to improve continuously by this core yardstick for joint working.
--
Checklist of Appraisal Questions:
How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members?
How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Does the way the shared mission is applied to changing circumstances reflect the informed concerns of the members?
Are there signs that members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure?
What proportion of members are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members?
[For a complete list of essays covering the 9 ‘SYNETOPIA’ elements, look up ‘Guide to Synetopia’]
Friday, December 25, 2015
Communitarianism & Synetopia
From Socrates’ questioning of all assumptions to Rorty’s assumption that nothing is beyond questioning, the history of philosophy can give the impression that little progress is ever made in reflecting on how we should live. But the intellectual journey from Thomas More’s communal utopia to our communitarian conception of synetopia would suggest that, provided the process of questioning is systematically linked to the formulation and revision of the way we live together, we can improve society over time.
Questioning the claims and commands of those who expect others to accept them is essential if the misguided and devious do not slip through along with sound assertions and orders. However, such questioning must be anchored to objectives that can be genuinely shared by all involved, and these would have to revolve around a combination of their personal and collective wellbeing. It also has to be carried out in a robust and responsible manner so that bad reasoning and inadequate evidence are challenged, while lessons learnt are retained until they are superseded by better explanations or new findings.
The development of the synetopia thesis has been driven by adaptations to shared experiences of what helps and what hinders the cultivation of cooperative problem-solving. Collaborating under conditions of equal respect and mutual support, people achieve far more than they ever could as isolated individuals, or worse, as enemies who plot to undermine each other.
Of course it is possible that some people would prefer to go with their own inclinations, however irrational or repugnant these may strike others, even if it means that other people’s wellbeing could be adversely affected. In some cases, even their trade-off to gain some gratification at the expense of other aspects of their lives may appear absurd to other people. But as Wittgenstein might say, the differences between such people and the rest of us are foundational – in the sense that they cannot go any further beyond the bedrock of justification. We may prefer to cooperate so as to maximise our personal and mutual good in harmony, but there are those who would rather follow their own short-term desires irrespective of any wider consequences; inflict pain on the innocent; build empires by subjugating the powerless; lose themselves in mind-numbing addictions; boost their low self-esteem through bullying; enrich themselves by deceiving the trusting; or indulge in personal obsessions with no thought for anyone else.
The ultimate difference is that while we can reach out and invite others to join us in what are genuinely common endeavours, the variants of self-centred exploits cannot be presented as a philosophy that is open to all.
In other words, synetopia is where reciprocity is taken seriously (see: ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’). Throughout history, as this ethos evolves, cooperation expands and diverse strands of joint deliberation and democratic power sharing come together to form a worldview directed at the building of inclusive community life (see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’; ‘Cooperative & Communitarian: a common heritage’; and ‘The Radical Communitarian Synthesis’).
When it is applied to the functioning of local and national government, it generates further learning on how inclusive communities can be developed and sustained (see, for example, ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment'). This in turn helps to inform the formulation of ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’, which provides a general framework for assessing what needs to be improved.
The reasoning that underpins the synetopia thesis that mutual questioning and systematic cooperation will help advance us towards better human conditions is set out in detail in the following books:
• Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics & citizenship (Macmillan 1998): a comprehensive statement of the core principles, and their justification and applications. Reviews of the book can be found here.
• Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity 2001): a collection of writings by European and American thinkers on progressive communitarianism.
• Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle (Birkbeck 2015): an exposition of the barriers to the development of more inclusive communities, and how they were overcome over the past centuries.
• Responsibility and Personal Interactions (Edwin Mellen Press 1990): a detailed study of how our responsibility to one another is connected to the type of personal interactions we seek to sustain with others in society.
• Punishment, Excuses & Moral Development (Avebury Press 1996): a collection of communitarian writings on what judgement and response would be appropriate in relation to the behaviour of other people.
--
If your university or local library has a copy of the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition; James D. Wright, editor-in-chief; Oxford: Elsevier; 2015), then you can access a useful summary of communitarian ideas in the article, ‘Communitarianism, sociology of' (by Henry Tam, in Vol. 4, pp.311-316).
Questioning the claims and commands of those who expect others to accept them is essential if the misguided and devious do not slip through along with sound assertions and orders. However, such questioning must be anchored to objectives that can be genuinely shared by all involved, and these would have to revolve around a combination of their personal and collective wellbeing. It also has to be carried out in a robust and responsible manner so that bad reasoning and inadequate evidence are challenged, while lessons learnt are retained until they are superseded by better explanations or new findings.
The development of the synetopia thesis has been driven by adaptations to shared experiences of what helps and what hinders the cultivation of cooperative problem-solving. Collaborating under conditions of equal respect and mutual support, people achieve far more than they ever could as isolated individuals, or worse, as enemies who plot to undermine each other.
Of course it is possible that some people would prefer to go with their own inclinations, however irrational or repugnant these may strike others, even if it means that other people’s wellbeing could be adversely affected. In some cases, even their trade-off to gain some gratification at the expense of other aspects of their lives may appear absurd to other people. But as Wittgenstein might say, the differences between such people and the rest of us are foundational – in the sense that they cannot go any further beyond the bedrock of justification. We may prefer to cooperate so as to maximise our personal and mutual good in harmony, but there are those who would rather follow their own short-term desires irrespective of any wider consequences; inflict pain on the innocent; build empires by subjugating the powerless; lose themselves in mind-numbing addictions; boost their low self-esteem through bullying; enrich themselves by deceiving the trusting; or indulge in personal obsessions with no thought for anyone else.
The ultimate difference is that while we can reach out and invite others to join us in what are genuinely common endeavours, the variants of self-centred exploits cannot be presented as a philosophy that is open to all.
In other words, synetopia is where reciprocity is taken seriously (see: ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’). Throughout history, as this ethos evolves, cooperation expands and diverse strands of joint deliberation and democratic power sharing come together to form a worldview directed at the building of inclusive community life (see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’; ‘Cooperative & Communitarian: a common heritage’; and ‘The Radical Communitarian Synthesis’).
When it is applied to the functioning of local and national government, it generates further learning on how inclusive communities can be developed and sustained (see, for example, ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment'). This in turn helps to inform the formulation of ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’, which provides a general framework for assessing what needs to be improved.
The reasoning that underpins the synetopia thesis that mutual questioning and systematic cooperation will help advance us towards better human conditions is set out in detail in the following books:
• Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics & citizenship (Macmillan 1998): a comprehensive statement of the core principles, and their justification and applications. Reviews of the book can be found here.
• Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity 2001): a collection of writings by European and American thinkers on progressive communitarianism.
• Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle (Birkbeck 2015): an exposition of the barriers to the development of more inclusive communities, and how they were overcome over the past centuries.
• Responsibility and Personal Interactions (Edwin Mellen Press 1990): a detailed study of how our responsibility to one another is connected to the type of personal interactions we seek to sustain with others in society.
• Punishment, Excuses & Moral Development (Avebury Press 1996): a collection of communitarian writings on what judgement and response would be appropriate in relation to the behaviour of other people.
--
If your university or local library has a copy of the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition; James D. Wright, editor-in-chief; Oxford: Elsevier; 2015), then you can access a useful summary of communitarian ideas in the article, ‘Communitarianism, sociology of' (by Henry Tam, in Vol. 4, pp.311-316).
Friday, December 18, 2015
The Synetopia Protocol
‘Synetopia’ denotes the ‘cooperative place’, where people work together so that the sum of what is achieved for everyone is greater than all the outcomes they would have managed to attain as isolated individuals. It marks the departure from ‘utopia’ where the ‘good place’ is either too abstract a notion to serve as a guide, or is premised on such impossible terms that it is in effect an unrealisable ideal (or ‘ou-topia’ - ‘no place’). By contrast, synetopia is achievable precisely through forms of interaction that have been tried and tested in diverse contexts, and proven to improve human relationships and improve the quality of life. The challenge is to put the essential elements in place consistently and extensively. To this end, a protocol has been devised with the ‘SYNETOPIA’ acronym spelling out those elements:
S hared Mission
Y ou-and-I Mutuality
N imble Membership
E ducative Collaboration
T esting of Claims and Assumptions
O pen Access to Information
P articipatory Decision-Making
I mpartial Distribution of Power
A ccountability for Action
The Synetopia Protocol is designed to provide a simple framework to help review any group (voluntary, commercial, or governmental) in terms of how it is performing under each of these nine elements, and map out how they can be improved and sustained on a continuous basis. There is no perfect future to reach, but simply a cooperative process to render the present better than the past.
Shared Mission
All members of the group have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group provides an effective and visible vehicle to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Indicators of deficiency: Members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure, are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there is genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none can amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
Indicators of deficiency: Members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
Nimble Membership
There is a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually? Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Indicators of deficiency: There are too few/too many members to function effectively; current members are distrustful of the process of accepting and/excluding people as members.
Educative Collaboration
All members of the group are enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the relevant evidence as well as proposals for change.
Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
Indicators of deficiency: Members are detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not accept that there is any claim or assumption that is fundamentally unquestionable. It is prepared to subject all proposals and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
Indicators of deficiency: Irrational beliefs are allowed to take hold & undermine intelligent considerations. There is widespread perception that there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
Open Access to Information
Nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception are in place, and demands for secrecy are independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
Indicators of deficiency: There is common suspicion that systematic or reactive shielding of irresponsible actions is perpetrated; there is unjustifiable refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group enables and encourages all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensures everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the resources generated by the group?
Indicators of deficiency: A significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions harm the group & its members.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power is monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
Indicators of deficiency: There is suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Members show fear, resentment, distrust towards the leadership.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, are held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges are resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
Indicators of deficiency: Some are able to stay in positions of power regardless of the severity and frequency of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of the group.
--
The elements identified for the synetopia protocol are derived from a combination of academic research, international exchange of policy ideas, and a review of the findings of the ‘Together We Can’ action learning programme I carried out as the UK Government’s Head of Civil Renewal between 2003 and 2010. More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
S hared Mission
Y ou-and-I Mutuality
N imble Membership
E ducative Collaboration
T esting of Claims and Assumptions
O pen Access to Information
P articipatory Decision-Making
I mpartial Distribution of Power
A ccountability for Action
The Synetopia Protocol is designed to provide a simple framework to help review any group (voluntary, commercial, or governmental) in terms of how it is performing under each of these nine elements, and map out how they can be improved and sustained on a continuous basis. There is no perfect future to reach, but simply a cooperative process to render the present better than the past.
Shared Mission
All members of the group have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group provides an effective and visible vehicle to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Indicators of deficiency: Members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure, are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there is genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none can amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
Indicators of deficiency: Members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
Nimble Membership
There is a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually? Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Indicators of deficiency: There are too few/too many members to function effectively; current members are distrustful of the process of accepting and/excluding people as members.
Educative Collaboration
All members of the group are enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the relevant evidence as well as proposals for change.
Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
Indicators of deficiency: Members are detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not accept that there is any claim or assumption that is fundamentally unquestionable. It is prepared to subject all proposals and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
Indicators of deficiency: Irrational beliefs are allowed to take hold & undermine intelligent considerations. There is widespread perception that there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
Open Access to Information
Nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception are in place, and demands for secrecy are independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
Indicators of deficiency: There is common suspicion that systematic or reactive shielding of irresponsible actions is perpetrated; there is unjustifiable refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group enables and encourages all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensures everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the resources generated by the group?
Indicators of deficiency: A significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions harm the group & its members.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power is monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
Indicators of deficiency: There is suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Members show fear, resentment, distrust towards the leadership.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, are held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges are resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
Indicators of deficiency: Some are able to stay in positions of power regardless of the severity and frequency of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of the group.
--
The elements identified for the synetopia protocol are derived from a combination of academic research, international exchange of policy ideas, and a review of the findings of the ‘Together We Can’ action learning programme I carried out as the UK Government’s Head of Civil Renewal between 2003 and 2010. More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Together We Can: resources for cooperative problem-solving
Introduction
Together We Can is a set of practical resources drawn together from the national ‘Together We Can’ programme (carried out by the UK Government 2003-2010 as an action-learning exercise to empower citizens to cooperate with each other and with public bodies to solve problems); the international Cooperative Problem-Solving research (at the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge); and the ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (implemented for a local authority over a 4 year period to strengthen democratic participation, and subsequently recognised with a Best Practice Award from the Prime Minister in 1999). These resources have also informed the development of the Synetopia Protocol.
What are the key issues to reflect on
• How can we show that people are ready to engage in public decisions provided they are actually given a meaningful say?
• What are the key ingredients for effective cooperative problem-solving?
• What are the main lessons to learn from civic disengagement?
• How to build sustainable democratic action when those hostile to such action are in power?
• Why greater focus should be given to tried and tested techniques than reinventing short-term ‘innovative’ projects?
How to get hold of the resources
The following cover a range of ideas and findings on the value of adopting cooperative problem-solving, and they are all accessible for free online:
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: on the key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving, as jointly agreed with a group of academics and practitioners (Question the Powerful, October 2012).
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: on the lessons from the ‘Together We Can’ programme and ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (first published in Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011).
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: on why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': on the role of lifelong learning in developing a cooperative mindset (Question the Powerful, November 2013).
For case study materials based on the ‘Together We Can’ programme, you can download the following from the national archives at no charge:
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
Options for further engagement
• Contact Henry Tam with any question about his experience in devising and delivering these local and national programmes.
• Share the Together We Can resources with others to promote effective cooperative problem-solving between citizens, and between state and citizens.
• Set up a meeting to discuss evolving strategies for community empowerment citizen action.
• Draw on the resources to develop democratic campaign groups and cooperative alliances to strengthen community solidarity and challenge the irresponsible acts of the powerful.
Supplementary Materials
The following works provide more information on how the Together We Can approach has evolved to become key to the cultivation of the cooperative gestalt in citizen-state cooperation:
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government (Longman: 1993)
The following links will take you to range of resources on how citizens can play a more influential part in shaping their communities and their state:
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets.
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors and facilitate citizen participation.
Together We Can is a set of practical resources drawn together from the national ‘Together We Can’ programme (carried out by the UK Government 2003-2010 as an action-learning exercise to empower citizens to cooperate with each other and with public bodies to solve problems); the international Cooperative Problem-Solving research (at the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge); and the ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (implemented for a local authority over a 4 year period to strengthen democratic participation, and subsequently recognised with a Best Practice Award from the Prime Minister in 1999). These resources have also informed the development of the Synetopia Protocol.
What are the key issues to reflect on
• How can we show that people are ready to engage in public decisions provided they are actually given a meaningful say?
• What are the key ingredients for effective cooperative problem-solving?
• What are the main lessons to learn from civic disengagement?
• How to build sustainable democratic action when those hostile to such action are in power?
• Why greater focus should be given to tried and tested techniques than reinventing short-term ‘innovative’ projects?
How to get hold of the resources
The following cover a range of ideas and findings on the value of adopting cooperative problem-solving, and they are all accessible for free online:
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: on the key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving, as jointly agreed with a group of academics and practitioners (Question the Powerful, October 2012).
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: on the lessons from the ‘Together We Can’ programme and ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (first published in Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011).
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: on why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': on the role of lifelong learning in developing a cooperative mindset (Question the Powerful, November 2013).
For case study materials based on the ‘Together We Can’ programme, you can download the following from the national archives at no charge:
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
Options for further engagement
• Contact Henry Tam with any question about his experience in devising and delivering these local and national programmes.
• Share the Together We Can resources with others to promote effective cooperative problem-solving between citizens, and between state and citizens.
• Set up a meeting to discuss evolving strategies for community empowerment citizen action.
• Draw on the resources to develop democratic campaign groups and cooperative alliances to strengthen community solidarity and challenge the irresponsible acts of the powerful.
Supplementary Materials
The following works provide more information on how the Together We Can approach has evolved to become key to the cultivation of the cooperative gestalt in citizen-state cooperation:
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government (Longman: 1993)
The following links will take you to range of resources on how citizens can play a more influential part in shaping their communities and their state:
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets.
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors and facilitate citizen participation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)