Monthly Archives: February 2014

looking for your own central ideas

Posted on by
Reply

I have been suggesting that people map their own moral opinions as networks and critically examine the shapes that result. My students are doing that (because they have to), and some friends are doing it voluntarily. See my students’ collective map as an illustration.

One way in which networks vary is in their degree of centralization. If you map all your moral commitments and the links among them, you may reveal a network that centers around a single idea, or a very flat network in which no idea has more links than any other–or something in between. I personally favor flatter networks (for abstract philosophical reasons), but I don’t believe my reasons are decisive. So instead, I would pose these questions:

If you have a very flat network, in which no idea is appreciably more important than any other, is that a mistake? Should any of your existing commitments be made more central, because they are particularly important? What would happen, hypothetically, if you added to your network a new general and demanding principle that would link to many other ideas? (For instance: “Always maximize the well-being of all sentient creatures.”) Look at the resulting network and consider whether it has any pull on you.

If you have a highly centralized network, ask yourself whether the ideas that have proven so important deserve their weight. Are you certain that they are valid? Are you sure they are more important than your other commitments? What would happen if, for some reason, you ceased to believe in these central nodes–would the whole network fall apart? And are you able to reason with another person who does not happen to share your central commitments? Could you avoid your central beliefs in order to make arguments that the other person could accept and still navigate through your own network?

Now for a little more technical detail. There are actually several ways in which a node can be central in a network. In the image below, the red nodes are the most central in the sense that they have the most direct links to other nodes (7 each). A better way to say that is that each red node has 7 out of the total 24 links on the map, or 29%.

From Junker et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2006 7:219 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-219

From Junker et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2006 7:219 doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-219

However, the blue node is central in a different sense: it lies on the path between the greatest number of other nodes. To get from any node in one cluster to any node in a different cluster, you have to go through the blue node. Yet the blue node only has 3 direct links (12.5%).

It is worth checking your own moral network for both kinds of centrality because they both matter.

Consider a person who believes in God. Presumably, God should be linked to a lot of other moral ideas–to all of them, at least indirectly. Some believers would aim for a spoke-and-wheel network in which God directly touched every other idea. To drop the network metaphor for a moment, they would immediately invoke God as the reason for every moral belief. “Purity of heart is to will one thing.”

But I do not believe that such a network design is characteristic of pious people in any religious tradition. Typically, faith takes the form of a whole set of linked ideas, some abstract and general and others very concrete. The ideas may include the stories and characters in scripture, the metaphysical attributes of God, the community of believers and their institutions, and the traditions of the faith (see my typology). Monotheists struggle to maintain one reasonably coherent network in which God is very important, but they do not organize their whole network as a single spoke-and-wheel.

Thus, for a monotheistic believer, God could appear as either the blue node or as one of the red nodes in the figure above.

In the blue-node scenario, God is what links everything together. Sooner or later, when discussing moral issues, this person would invoke God as a fundamental reason. Yet God would not be directly and immediately pertinent to most everyday decisions. The person might decide what to buy, how to vote, and how to raise her kids without immediately citing God. The connection to God goes through other ideas, such as “Do unto others as you would have them to do you,” or “Be a good member of the community.”

In the red-node scenario, God is immediately relevant in one domain of life: presumably, the religious domain. When deciding how to worship, what dietary rules to follow, etc., God comes immediately to mind. God is also linked indirectly to the whole network. But God is rather far removed from some domains of life, which might include the economy and politics.

I am using monotheistic faith as an example here, because everyone is familiar with what it means. But we could replace God with a strongly secular principle, such as “science offers the only truth.” In that case, too, the principle might be placed as the blue node, as the red node, or as one of the white nodes.

Overall, the network shown above is fragile because it only holds together thanks to the one blue node. Knock that out and there is no network at all. If the central node is true and deeply significant, then so be it. Deep faith (whether religious or otherwise) means committing to an idea even at the risk of having a fragile network. But if one believes that it is important to deliberate with other people, then the network shown above is problematic because the conversation will break down as soon as your interlocutor denies the contents of the blue node. You will have no other way to make your point than to repeat that node.

I fundamentally believe in deliberation because of human cognitive and motivational limitations. Each of us has a narrow and biased worldview, and the best we can do is to interact with others. That means that if your network is as centralized as the one shown above, you are at risk. On the other hand, if your network is completely flat, maybe you lack a sense of what is most important.

The post looking for your own central ideas appeared first on Peter Levine.

Awesome Interview of World Café’s Amy Lenzo

Posted on by
Reply

We recently started reading a terrific interview series from the talented team at Collaborative Services on public participation lessons they have learned in the last year, and we wanted to share their insights with the NCDD community. The first interview in the series features the reflections of NCDD supporting member Amy Lenzo of the World Café - an organization whose founders are also NCDD founding members. You can read the interview below, or find the original on Collaborative Services’ blog by clicking here.

collaborative services logo

The World Café: We Are Wiser Together

You may have heard the saying “If you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” Meaning if you aren’t actively participating, then you’re probably the topic being discussed or getting ready to be figuratively eaten. All the more reason to pull up a seat and actively engage in the discussions that matter to you.

Participating in large groups can be difficult, but one organization has developed a unique approach to make it easier for people just like you to be at the table for important civic discussions.

This week we start our series on successful public participation hearing from Amy Lenzo, the Director of World Café Learning Programs. The inspiration for the World Café came from a gathering of twenty academic and corporate leaders one rainy day at the home of World Café founders, Juanita Brown and David Isaacs. Since the rain prevented the group from starting their day on the patio, Brown and Isaacs set up make-shift café tables in their living room using TV tables fit with white easel paper as table cloths and vases with flowers as an alternative setting for their guests to gather for coffee and breakfast upon their arrival for their second day of key strategic dialogue on the field of Intellectual Capital.

Soon, and without any prompting, Brown and Isaacs noticed the small groups becoming deeply engaged in conversation and writing their thoughts and comments on the paper table cloths. Forty-five minutes later the suggestion was made for one host from each small group to stay at their table and for the rest of the members to move to different tables as a way for everyone to learn what had come out of the conversations happening in the other groups. From there the room was alive, the guests were excited and engaged, and the World Café method was born.

The World Café method emphasizes the importance of  creating a comfortable environment to draw people in. Just as with Brown and Isaacs’ group of academic and corporate leaders, small round tables with checkered tablecloths and vases with flowers help create the feeling of being at a café and make participating feel as easy as conversing over a cup of coffee with friends. Having a hospitable and inviting environment is important, especially when discussions have the potential to get heated.

The World Café method has resonated with cultures around the world, helping to establish a global common ground for public participation. This week we will learn more about the World Café’s global community and its method and process for successful public participation.

- — -

How is the World Café approach different from traditional approaches to public engagement efforts?

The World Café is based on the premise that we are wiser together than any of us are alone, so it’s all about participation, and welcoming diversity so that we can learn from each other. It’s not a “top-down” communication process – each voice is valued equally and the focus is on sensing the “collective wisdom” that can exist between us when we really listen to each other and pay attention to the patterns that emerge within our conversations.

Another unique characteristic of the World Café process is its capacity for both intimacy and scale.

World Cafes can engage very large numbers of people – They have been done successfully with many thousands of people – without losing the sense of intimacy and depth that 20-minute table conversations with no more than 4 people at a table can foster. It’s amazing how deep these table conversations can be even among strangers, while the rotating rounds of conversation & whole group harvest give participants an experience of the larger picture.

Credit: The World Café Flickr

Is there an ideal use of the World Café approach or can it be applied to all public gatherings?

Well, there are situations where the World Café is not the best approach – when the group is less than 12 people, say, or when the result of the conversation is already known, e.g. when you just want to get information across. But when you have more than 12 people and there is respect for the innate capacity of people to address what is most important to them, the World Café can work well for any event, be it community-based and public or private including corporate, organizational, and institutional.

The World Café is based on seven design principles. How were these principles developed?

The World Café process itself happened spontaneously in response to particular circumstances during an international gathering of Intellectual Capital pioneers at Juanita Brown’s home. Subsequently, when it was clear that something extraordinary had happened that day, Juanita and colleagues Finn Voltoft and David Isaacs, with help from many others, embarked upon a serious investigation to find out exactly what conditions led to the experience and research whether or not the experience could be replicated. The result of this research gave rise to the formulation of the seven World Café design principles, which form the basis for World Café practice.

Is one or some of the principles more integral to fostering meaningful conversations? Or do they all play an equal part?

Every World Café design principle is a key element within the set. They can be used individually as powerful aids to meaningful conversation, and there are many synergies among them, but when the seven design principles are utilized in concert together they create the conditions whereby something truly extraordinary can occur.

Tell us more about the World Café online community. When did this start and how has it evolved over the years?

The international network of people using the World Café has grown exponentially ever since the World Café method was introduced. This growth was organic – largely through experience or word of mouth – and steady. Within a few years there were more than a thousand people engaging in conversation about their experiences hosting or participating in World Café. At that point, the World Café Community Foundation commissioned the first online community platform to support these conversations within what we have come to call a “community of practice.”

Credit: World Café

Online platforms have changed and been re-designed, but the number of people in the World Café online community continues to grow. There are currently almost 4,500 members from every continent, and almost every country in the World Café online community platform and over 2,000 in a Linkedin group. In addition, people all over the world share their World Café photos on Flickr and participate in a variety of other social media conversations online.

The actual number of practitioners and those who have experienced a World Café is of course many, many times higher. And now, as our online learning programs expand (we’re launching a new Masters Level course in World Café and Appreciative Inquiry with Fielding Graduate University in the Fall 2014 term), the numbers of actively engaged new practitioners continue to grow exponentially.

You’ve coined the term “conversational leader.” Can you explain the responsibilities of a conversational leader and what processes they should follow to successfully engage their participants?

We didn’t coin the term – World Café host Carolyn Baldwin did – but we have continued to evolve and develop the idea. Juanita Brown and Tom Hurley wrote a wonderful article on this subject, which is available as a free download on our website. Basically, the idea is that conversational leaders recognize conversation as a core meaning-making process and consciously create opportunities for meaningful conversation to occur in their organizations, as well as fruitfully utilize the results of those conversations.

The World Café approach is used by organizations and educational institutions around the world. What are some of the best examples of this approach in action that you have seen?

There are so many! We have an impact map on the World Café website with some great examples but I think one of the most striking was a World Café hosted in Tel Aviv. It was a reasonably ambitious event from the beginning – planned and set up as an outdoor World Café to engage up to 4,000 Israelis in a political and social conversation about transforming their country for the better – but according to reports from the hosts and other media, over 10,000 people showed up!

Why do you think this approach resonates with so many different cultures?

Conversation is a core human activity. We all do it; it’s fundamental to our nature, whatever our culture. We all crave the opportunity to be heard as we speak to others about things that really matter to us, and it is always moving to hear what really matters to others. Being part of a World Café conversation where there is a truly diverse set of participants – all of whom are welcomed and their perspectives valued – can be a life-changing experience.

An example of graphic recording from the Reno Climate Change Café.
(Credit: The World Café Flickr)

Graphic recording (capturing people’s idea’s and expressions in words, images and color – as they are being spoken) is recommended as part of the World Café approach. While recording the input received is a valuable practice, and many times a requirement for most public engagement opportunities, how does graphic recording benefit the participant?

From my perspective it’s the participant that gains most of all by having a graphic listener/recorder present as part of the World Café hosting team! Professional graphic facilitators are trained in ways that make them very valuable in capturing the essence of what is being shared during the harvesting process, but they are also invaluable collaborators for things like finding the right questions to help participants cut to the heart of the issue. During the harvest, having their words and ideas faithfully reflected is very powerful for the participant who has shared them, and seeing the collective meaning literally take form in front of the group is very valuable for the whole group – a fabulous fulfillment of the 7th World Café principle to “share collective discoveries.”

Which strategies could our readers take with them to help them become better communicators?

I think the main skill we can all develop in becoming better communicators is that of deep listening. And by deep listening I mean not just listening to understand another person’s point of view, although that can be very valuable in and of itself, but listening for what we can learn from the differences in perspective we hear. In other words, stepping outside of our own opinion in order to listen and learn from diverse points of view. That skill or strategy alone could not only make us better communicators, but it might even change the world for the better.

- — -

Thank you Amy for sharing your insights and for working to change the world for the better.

This interview is part of a blog series from Collaborative Services, Inc. - a public outreach firm in San Diego, California that brings people together from their individual spheres and disciplines to improve communities and help people adapt to an ever-changing world. The firm uses inter-disciplinary efforts to manage and provide services in stakeholder involvement, marketing and communications, and public affairs. The firm’s award-winning services have spanned the western region of the United States from Tacoma, Washington to the Mexico Port of Entry.

We thank Collaborative Services for allowing NCDD to learn along with them, and we encourage our members to visit their blog by clicking here. You can find the original version of the above article at www.collaborativeservicesinc.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/the-world-cafe-we-are-wiser-together.

Group Decision Tip: Flat for planning, stacked for doing

Posted on by
Reply

In principle, different ways of deciding should be applied to different types of decisions.

Group Decision Tips IconDeciding how things should be — planning — is well-suited to a flat decision-making structure; that is, where several decision makers are equal and all fully participate. Some call this consensus decision making. As a rule, the longer and wider the reach of the plan, the broader and flatter the planning structure should be.

Deciding how to implement plans — doing — is better suited to hierarchical decision-making structure; that is, roles and responsibilities are stacked upon each other. There is a chain of command and accountability up and down the ladder. As a rule, the more expeditious and short-lived a decision is, the better it is to delegate it to an individual within a hierarchy.

Practical Tip: For each decision, first decide the type of decision: Is it more of a planning decision or more of an implementation-type decision? Will it have long-term, broad impact or short-term, local impact? Apply a decision-making method appropriate to the nature of the decision. Every group member need not decide small, implementation details. Long-term planning and high-level policy should not be in the hands of just a powerful few.

You Choose, Tameside, Greater Manchester, UK

Posted on by
Reply

Case: You Choose, Tameside, Greater Manchester, UK

Feb 6 '14
Author: 
Steve Corbett
Purpose Each year this PB process provides funding for projects proposed by local voluntary and community groups within 8 districts in Tameisde. There is also a pan-Tameside event for groups that operate across different districts in the Tameside area, and there are 9 annual PB events. You Choose comes under...

Fine

Posted on by
Reply

While the rituals of social interaction have long been a mystery to me, I’ve always been particularly stuck by this common (in the States, at least) dialogue:

How are you?
I’m fine. You?
I’m okay.

Well, then. Nice chat.

Some day, I’ll dig out the diatribes from my youth railing against these seemingly benign conversations. But whether the response is “fine,” “okay,” “good,” or some variation thereof, for now, I’ll simply do a quick review of all that is wrong with this situation.

First, are you really fine? I mean, it’s fine to say you’re fine if you’re fine. Hey, I’d even say it’s good to say you’re fine if that’s where you’re at. But what if you’re not fine?

And that, of course, leads to my next question.

Second, what if you say you’re fine when you’re not fine? This question is somewhat difficult, and gets more generally to a question of lying or obfuscating. I’ve asked a number of people this question throughout my life and I’ve generally gotten answers along the lines of:

A) Yes, it’s okay to say you’re fine even if you’re not fine. Whether you’re talking to a passing acquaintance or to someone you’ve known for years, sometimes – especially when you’re not fine – you just don’t want to get into it.

B) Yes, it’s okay to say you’re fine even if you’re not fine. Everyone understands this conversation is just part of the social contract and it isn’t intended to be taken literally. When someone asks, “what’s up?” Only a smart aleck says, “the sky.”

C) No, it’s not okay to say you’re fine if you’re not fine. It’s one thing to not want to get into it with strangers, but if you’re saying you’re fine when you’re not fine, then you are most likely hiding the truth from yourself. That can be unhealthy, you need to be honest with yourself to get better.

D) No, it’s not okay to say you’re fine if you’re not fine. If you’re not fine, then to say otherwise is a lie, and lying is definitively not a good thing. It may even be immoral.

The majority of folks I’ve talked to have been As and Bs – probably why so many people say they’re fine – but there are definitely a few Cs and Ds out there.

But more importantly, you can see how quickly a conversation about this social interaction turns into a conversation about whether or not it’s okay to lie. Almost every time I ask someone why we have this greeting ritual, that’s where the conversation goes. Whether they’re an A,B, C, or D, the conversation inevitably becomes about how to best respond when some casually asks you this serious question.

The morality of lying is a perfectly fine conversation to have, but in this context it misses the point. And that brings me to my next question.

Third, do you care whether or not someone is fine? Asking how someone else is doing is not about you. It’s about them.

So it’s telling that when asking most people how they feel about this awkward “fine” ritual, they immediately go to their own struggles with how to respond. To be clear, I don’t claim to be any different…why do you think I’m interested in this topic in the first place?

But inevitably, as you debate the merits of A, B, C, or D someone will bite their lip and say, “I don’t think I’m supposed to say how I really am. I don’t think they really care.”

And that’s what gets me.

How are you? Shouldn’t be a throw away question. If you’re going to ask, listen to the response. Ask a follow up. Show that you really do care.

I used to play with this when I was younger. Someone would ask how I was and I’d say, “I don’t know, are you asking to be polite or are you asking because you actually want to know?” I don’t think you’re supposed to say things like that. And judging from the stunned silence or stammering I’d receive in response, I don’t think most people knew how to respond. It is, after all, impolite to say you’re just being polite.

I had similar experiments telling people I was fantastic! or terrible, ecstatic or distraught. No one knew how to respond to any of them. People recovered from the surprise of an overly positive response sooner, but there was still that moment of doubt where you could see them recalculating the conversation in their head.

So what I really wonder is, fourth, why do people ask in the first place? I get that it’s a social norm and a ritualistic greeting we’ve all acclimated to, but if you really don’t care how someone’s doing – just don’t ask.

Frankly, I’d prefer someone start a conversation by yelling, “I don’t care how you’re doing!” before launching into whatever they want to talk to me about. I’d be okay with that. I’d probably find it amusing. It’s okay with me if you don’t really care, but if that’s where you’re at, let’s go ahead and drop the pretense.

And we should all be mindful of the risk of pretense when we ask others how they’re doing.

If the opposite of a friend is a flatterer, than we must all be wary. Not only of the flatterers, but of being flatterers ourselves.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Join us for an online book club event on Slow Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

We know many NCDDers have been reading Susan Clark’s 2012 book Slow Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home — and if you’re not, you really should be!

SlowDemoCoverAuthorNCDD is partnering with Chelsea Green Publishing to offer you a free online book club event on Slow Democracy. The event will take place on Wednesday, March 5 from 2:00 to 3:00 Eastern. Sign up today if you’re interested in joining us and exploring the book with author (and NCDD member) Susan Clark!

Of all the great books that have come out in our field over the past few years, this is one of my very favorites. Undoubtedly one of the reasons for this is that when I flip through the book I see many NCDD members’ stories, innovations, and insights shared. Slow Democracy is both a much-needed primer and a source of inspiration and fodder for those on the forefront of dialogue, deliberation and public engagement.

The event is free, but I encourage you to get yourself a copy of the book if you don’t already have one. To get a 35% discount on the book, buy it here and enter “READCG” at checkout.

So what is “slow democracy”?

Just as slow food encourages chefs and eaters to become more intimately involved with the production of local food, and slow money helps us become more engaged with our local economy, slow democracy encourages us to govern ourselves locally with processes that are inclusive, deliberative, and citizen powered. Readers learn the stories of neighbors who collaborate to address the causes of crime, residents who take up environmental issues, parents who find creative solutions to divisive and seemingly irreconcilable school-redistricting issues, and a host of other citizen-led actions that are reinvigorating local democracy and decision-making.

About Susan

Susan Clark is a writer and facilitator focusing on community sustainability and citizen participation. She is an award-winning radio commentator and former talk show co-host. Her democratic activism has earned her broad recognition, including the 2010 Vermont Secretary of State’s Enduring Democracy Award. Her work strengthening communities has included directing a community activists’ network and facilitating town-visioning forums. She served as communication and education director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Coordinator of the University of Vermont’s Environmental Programs In Communities (EPIC) project. Clark lives in Middlesex, Vermont, where she chairs a committee that encourages citizen involvement and serves as town-meeting moderator. Check out Susan’s NCDD member profile to read her bio or connect with her.

citizens, stakeholders, publics, interest groups?

Posted on by
Reply

Last semester, as part of Tufts’ Water Diplomacy program, we discussed with MIT professor Larry Susskind a paper in which he advocated for “involving stakeholders before [important] decisions are made.”* In the ensuing discussion, I wrote down the following nouns that were used to describe the individuals who might participate in making these decisions, along with experts and policymakers: “the population,” “the public,” “publics,” “stakeholders,” “groups,” “interests,” “citizens,” “representatives,” “negotiators,” “people” and “everybody” (as in, “You have to get everybody at the table.”) These words may have overlapping referents, but they are not synonyms. They imply different strategies and different core values. To pick up a few:

Stakeholders may include organizations and agencies as well as individuals. They are defined by having an identifiable “stake” in the matter. It is possible to define stakes very broadly so that, for instance, we all have a stake in the sustainability of the globe. (Then everyone is a stakeholder.) But defining people in terms of their “stakes” attaches each person to some particular priority. You are a farmer, an environmentalist, or a government official. That encourages negotiation but not deliberation–if deliberation implies an openness to changing one’s values and priorities.

Citizens must be individual people, although in practice, actual participants in deliberations and negotiations are often representatives of organized citizen groups. The word “citizen” has varied resonances. It can mean a legal member of some defined political community (distinguishing them from aliens). It can mean a person who is not an official, for sometimes we hear about “citizens meeting policymakers,” as if the latter were not also citizens. It can mean individuals who are accountable only to themselves or to their consciences. In that case, it encourages high-minded deliberation rather than negotiation.

The public can mean the great mass of people minus representatives of a relevant in-group, such as the government, the university, or the legal profession. That usage makes the public a relative concept: I am in the public with relation to the US government but outside the public when Tufts University engages its local communities. Sometimes people use a plural form of the word to talk about “issue publics” or “mobilized publics.” Then I think the word means large communities that promote discussion.

Interest groups are usually defined as sectors of the population that can be well represented by formal organizations with mission statements and explicit objectives. Their objectives need not be self-interested; for instance, environmentalists and human rights activists can represent interest groups. The key point is that they can be counted on to pursue a particular objective, and therefore, as long as an organization successfully promotes that objective, it represents them. Interest groups may be organized democratically so that their members have a say in the organizations’ strategies, but that seems optional and it has pros and cons. (It favors voice over exit as a way of determining strategy.)

A community (in this context) seems to be a group of people who may be highly diverse in terms of identities, goals, and interests, but they interact with one another either directly or through intermediaries. So Somerville, MA, is a community to the extent that its very diverse residents interact on matters of common concern. It may also be a community in an aspirational sense: since its residents live in the same city, they should interact.

An interest group is different from a community because membership in an interest group requires support for the interest. A good member of a community seems to owe the other members some concern and loyalty but is not obliged to agree with them. You can belong to a community and seek to change its prevailing goals and values. In contrast, if you disagree with the core goals of an interest group, you do not belong to it at all.

*Susskind, “Water and democracy: new roles for civil society in water governance,” International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2013
Vol. 29, No. 4, 666–677

The post citizens, stakeholders, publics, interest groups? appeared first on Peter Levine.

Job Opening at the Institute for Local Government

Posted on by
Reply

ILG logo

We thought it was important to make sure that NCDD members heard that the Institute for Local Government in California is seeking a new director. We know that many of our NCDD members would be a great fit for the position.

The Director position is described below:

This executive leadership position implements policy direction set forth by the Institute Board of Directors. This dynamic role plans, directs, manages and oversees all Institute functions, which include program management, funding and grant development, accounting, training seminar development and delivery, and supervision of staff. Responsibilities include; coordinating activities and resources between the Institute, League, CSAC, local government agencies and other private, public and non-profit organizations. Functioning independently and within a team setting, the Institute Director provides highly responsible and complex policy, fundraising, programming and administrative support.

Qualifications & Experience

  • At least eight years of broad-based senior management experience, including:
  • Served as a senior manager in a non-profit, grant funded organization;
  • A demonstrated track record of building an organization at the national, regional, or local level;
  • A lead role in generating revenue (both earned and contributed income) for an organization;
  • Measurable results in hiring, mentoring, developing, and leading staff;
  • Engaging and supporting a nonprofit governing board;
  • Familiarity with sophisticated public policy and legal research, analysis, communication and dissemination is required.

The ideal candidate has a passion for and commitment to the Institute’s mission to advance the effectiveness of local agencies for the benefit of the communities they serve.

An advanced degree or certificate from an accredited college or university with major course work in public policy, public or nonprofit administration and/or public engagement from an accredited college or university is desirable. Field experience with various forms of public education and engagement, especially involving groups representative of California’s diverse demographics, is an important attribute.

For more about the position and the Institute on Local Government, click here. You can also find the detailed job description by clicking here.

The position will be open until it is filled, but an opportunity like this won’t last long, so make sure to apply soon by sending your application materials to careers@cacities.org with “ILG Director” in the subject line.

Best of luck to all of the applicants!

Spinning to Infinity

Posted on by
Reply

Some things are nice and linear. First there’s A, then there’s B, then so on and so forth. Even more complex linear topics can ultimately seem simple. Just solve for x, and there you are with a nice, straightforward answer.

But life is often not like that. It’s tangled and unpredictable. Not even quadratic, much less linear.

But why does it seem so natural to say, “nice and linear,” or “nice and simple.” Are those things really nice? Are other things not?

I’ll not go into my rant on niceness here, but suffice it to say, I think messy is okay. I think unpredictable is okay. I think repetitive is okay.

Repetitive is an interesting one. There’s so many negative metaphors about repetition. Spinning your wheels. Reinventing the wheel.

To some degree this makes sense – doing the same thing over and over with no change or improvement certainly seems like a negative thing, or at the very least not the optimal way of approaching things.

But if circles are bad, spirals don’t seem to be the solution – you may just spiral out of control.

But life goes on.

And as time goes by, we all get a little better. Or maybe a little worse. We all change and stay the same, learn from new experiences and settle into patterns. It’s not linear. It doesn’t necessarily make any sense. But it is what it is.

Spinning to infinity.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

what is privilege?

Posted on by
Reply

What do we mean when we say “privilege,” in a political or social context?

Here are some valid everyday uses of the word: “It is a real privilege to be here tonight.” “Playing football is a privilege, not a right.” “I feel privileged and grateful to be enrolled at this college.”

A privilege seems to be some kind of benefit or desirable standing that not everyone has. Some privileges are perfectly appropriate. They create meaningful and worthy categories, such as membership in a given organization or the right to practice a particular profession. According to Elinor Ostrom’s hugely valuable research on how people manage common pool resources (such as fisheries and forests), one of the general principles is the need for clear boundaries between insiders and outsiders. The insiders have the privilege to, for example, fish in a common pond. If everyone has that right, all the fish will be taken.

The problem is unjust privilege. Teaching Tolerance says, for example:

white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world.

Several empirical claims are implicit here: (1) certain advantages accompany whiteness in the US; (2) these advantages persist even when no one deliberately endorses them; and (3) whites tend not to acknowledge their privileges.

Built into those claims are moral premises: (1) It is OK to make distinctions, but not on the basis of race; (2) earned advantages are justifiable but unearned ones are not; (3) it is better to be conscious of privilege.

I happen to share these six propositions–on the whole–but they are controversial. From the left, Bill Mullen writes in Socialist Worker that the concept of white skin privilege divides working-class coalitions, makes racial identity look fixed and inevitable, conceals the underlying cause of racism, and blocks the only path that he believes in, which is economic revolution. A left critic might also reject the assumption that earned privileges are acceptable because they come from talent or hard work. Although there’s a big debate about what this statement implies, John Rawls insists that “no one deserves his place in the distribution of natural endowments” (Theory of Justice, 17).

From the opposite end of the spectrum, David Horowitz asserts that white skin privilege is a radical leftist myth, and “black skin privilege” is the real problem today because official policies that acknowledge race favor people of color.

Meanwhile, people who endorse the use of the phrase tend to talk about other forms of privilege as well. Race is said to “intersect” with gender, sexual orientation, citizenship status, and social class to create webs of privilege.

We will not soon conclude these debates; but some conceptual clarity may help. I think “privilege” is being used to mean unjust advantage, and that raises the question of what constitutes justice. Distributive justice is a whole topic unto itself. Allowing skin color to predict social outcomes is unjust, but preventing that does not fully satisfy justice. Getting what you earn (and only that) would be one definition of justice–not mine. Getting all that you need to meet your potential would be another definition–but I don’t think it’s possible, since human potential is unlimited. Having an equal share of the society’s rights and goods would also not be my definition, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I don’t mind if other people have much more than I do (for I have plenty). Assuring everyone a reasonable minimum sounds good, but that it is compatible with profound and invidious inequality above the line.

Despite the difficulty, I’d argue that one must first develop a theory of justice before one can identify “privilege” in the negative sense of that word.

The post what is privilege? appeared first on Peter Levine.