Anyone who has been around the social sector for the past 30 years should be aware of the idea of systems change – it’s not new. But there seems to be a renewed interest in it at the moment, partly through Catalyst 2030 starting up in Australia.

Changing ‘systems’ is not a quick fix. The global systems we live with have been in the making for many years through the interplay over time of political philosophy, economic theory, ideology, theology and financial practices. These are all ingredients in the world’s current major systems –neoliberalism, capitalism, fascism, communism, or socialism.

It is not possible to understand what is happening in any of these systems by looking at their individual parts. To understand what is happening we need to understand how the different parts of the system interact and affect each other, which actors are affecting the system and what motivates them.

But how do you do that?

We propose two practical ways to get to to grips with systems change: combining ‘Critical Theory’ with the ‘power and systems approach’. Through that combination we can engage with global systems at a local level. The process must involve self-reflection as much as reflection of the external system we seek to change.

Top take-aways

• Activists need to become better ‘reflectivists’, taking the time to understand the system before (and while) engaging with it.
• We need to be clear what system we want to change and if we are part of or benefit from that system.
• The legitimate starting point for systems change is emancipation – to liberate people from the circumstances that enslave them.
• Global systems are changed by action at a local level.
• What climate change, gross inequality, or poverty are for us, slavery was once to the anti-slavery movement. Systems can be changed when small cogs in a large machine start to function differently.

Position paper: what is systems change and why should we bother?

The post Position paper: what is systems change and how do we do it? appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

In December 2019, Ms Rose Blossom was awarded the Pride of Brent Award for its Fly Girls project, a social enterprise providing services for black women and girls in Wembley, London. Amanda Epe, a black woman, is the founder of Ms Rose Blossom. How did she do it?

Amanda was the first member of the Social Enterprise Ideas Development (SEIDs) Hub – a social enterprise incubator in London, but not as we know it. SEIDs is designed for people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have a social enterprise idea, but who the traditional social enterprise ecosystem isn’t set up to support.

The social enterprise system favours the white middle class

Social enterprises often focus on creating job opportunities for people who are living with disadvantage because they do not have sustainable income from work. The general approach is to develop opportunities that create jobs for people who are out of work. The work is provided by those with the resources – especially finance – to do so.

In the social enterprise sector access to resources – financial and otherwise – are more readily available to white middle class “heroic” entrepreneurs, who create new social businesses as a result of their access to these finances and resources.

But where are the opportunities for people with scant financial resources, no savings to invest, living day-to-day on totally inadequate welfare income, who have a business idea? With no available cash or any other resource to access the support they need to commence their own social enterprise or ethical small business as a pathway out of poverty and unemployment, where do they go?

Is it even feasible in a “business” or “impact investing” sense to consider that people living with day-to-day disadvantage and poverty could have a business idea? And that given the right support and opportunity this business idea could provide them, and others, with sustainable income from work and a secure future?

There’s a different approach – feasibility indicator one: a government inquiry

Released in August this year, the Inquiry into sustainable employment for disadvantaged jobseekers (Parliament of Victoria, Legislative Assembly, Economy and Infrastructure Committee) paints a grim picture: “… types of employment barriers experienced by jobseekers facing disadvantage will persist and are likely to intensify following the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased competition for fewer job vacancies will also make it harder for these jobseekers to gain employment”. Add to this the analysis by Deloitte Access Economics that 150,000 fulltime job losses are predicted when the coronavirus supplement ends and the grimness is confirmed.

So how to respond? The Inquiry into sustainable employment for disadvantaged jobseekers makes two relevant findings:

• Finding 52 – Social enterprises that employ jobseekers facing disadvantage provide an important stepping stone for these jobseekers to move into mainstream employment.
• Finding 54 – Assisting jobseekers from disadvantaged backgrounds to start a small business helps them gain financial independence and can lead to creating jobs and employing jobseekers from similar backgrounds.

Both these findings suggest that assisting job seekers from disadvantaged backgrounds to start a social enterprise or ethical small business will assist them to gain financial independence and can lead to them creating jobs and employing jobseekers from similar backgrounds.

There’s a different approach – feasibility indicator two: SEIDs Hub Wembley

In 2015, I visited a disused building in Empire Way, Wembley, London with the director of Caritas Westminster.

The building – previously an Irish Catholic Social Club – was dilapidated and run-down. “What would you do with that?” I was asked. I suggested that with a bit of work the premises would be a great space to host a social enterprise incubator – but not one of the traditional types already on offer around London.

What followed was several papers focused on options and strategy, a feasibility analysis, a business plan, several grant applications, numerous conversations and discussions with staff and board members, and key internal and external stakeholders, especially the local Wembley community.

The result was SEIDs – Social Enterprise Ideas Development – a new social enterprise hub, open for business on 1 October 2018.

SEIDs is different… and it works

The differentiator for SEIDs amongst other social enterprise “hubs” is its offer of financial support packages to people who would otherwise be excluded from access to business development and support to commence their own small business /social enterprise as a pathway out of poverty.

Since 2017 SEIDs has attracted capital funds of £600,000 to refurbish the premises in Empire Way, £230,290 from the Brent local government Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Fund for specific programmes, £224,000 from trust and foundations to provide financial support packages, and £280,000 to underwrite operational costs from the project sponsor Caritas Westminster – in total £1.4 million, the equivalent of approximately A$2.6 million.

SEIDs Hub has 65 members after 22 months of being open for business (the last six-months impacted significantly by COVID-19). The majority of members are those who have qualified for a financial package (valued between £3,750 ? $6,700 AUD) and who are from a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background – in Australia the equivalent cohort is identified as CALD – with around one-third of members self-financing their engagement with the hub. This mix of self-financing members and those on a financial support package is another “differentiator” at the hub.

What’s on offer at SEIDs?

All members have access to a physical space with individual and collective work desks, break-out space, private and group meeting rooms and a separate fully equipped training facility. Additionally, two tailored programmes are offered for those who are eligible for a financial support package: The SEIDs Pre-Start Up 12 Week Program for 15 participants delivered in partnership with the School for Social Entrepreneurs (SSE). The program offers seven free practical weekday evening learning sessions over 13 weeks, a £500 grant, and a community of other people starting up projects in Brent to meet regularly, gain peer support and work through challenges together.

The SEIDs 12-month Start Up Business Program offers up to 25 participants the tools, resources, networks and confidence to set up and develop their own business. This program is for anyone who is unemployed, on benefits or who has been struggling to find enough work and who can access a financial support package. The program offers 12 workshops, a £500 grant on completion of a viable business plan, access to specialist mentors, access to a business coach and open access to the SEIDs co-working space. The first program that commenced in September 2019, and the current program commencing this month, are fully subscribed with a waiting list for the next cohort to commence.

Both the 10-week and 12-month programs have been designed with and delivered by people from the Brent community and others who are outside that community, to ensure accessibility and appropriateness of language and content.

The learning approach and style is focused and tailored to the needs of all its members, particularly BAME (CALD), migrant and refugee communities as well as the long-term unemployed. The focus is on peer-to-peer learning in communities of trust, support and collaboration – an ecosystem or ethos different to the “traditional” social enterprise incubators/accelerators.

With few exceptions, support for social enterprise start-ups and scale-ups follows a particular pattern – a series of workshops followed by refinement of the enterprise idea and then a pitch to a panel of potential “impact” investors. This approach is entirely unsuited to people from disadvantaged communities.

The competitive pitch approach to potential investors after a series of business grooming workshops favours a particular “style” and personality profile that is more likely apparent amongst young middle-class “changemakers” than other particular cohorts of people, and difficult to negotiate for BAME (CALD), migrant and refugee communities as well as the long-term unemployed. Ashoka some years ago ditched the pitch in favour of what it now calls “informed conversations” where everyone is around a table – not one person out front competing via a pitch performance.

What we have learnt

We have discovered many women and men are excluded because of their financial circumstances from access to social start-up support. We have also discovered that given the opportunity, they can be the authors of their own change, their own story and successfully deliver a social enterprise or ethical small business that rivals any other.

Given the impact of COVID-19 on the current and future levels of unemployment and disadvantage in Australia a SEIDs project would appear to fill a significant gap in the “social”, “for-purpose”, “impactful”, “changemaking” sector. It would generate more and more opportunities for the Ms Rose Blossoms of the world to take charge of their own futures.

We would love to hear from anyone interested in getting involved in exploring Australian opportunities.

The post Why we need a different type of social enterprise hub in Australia appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

Not-for-profit sector, for-purpose sector, impact economy, social enterprise sector, social businesses, ethical enterprises, conscious capitalism, social progress sector, difference-makers, changemakers, the social economy – these are all terms used to deliberately position a particular type of organisational, economic and social activity and differentiate it from the broader political-economic context of “market-driven for-profit capitalism”.

But does this proliferation of terms, words and language for the sector, in order to define itself as not “market-driven for-profit capitalism”, matter? Does it strengthen the sector(s) and provide a clear identity, or does it confuse and disintegrate?

One clear fact is that when it comes to “market-driven for-profit capitalism” there is no confusion about what it is or isn’t.

Whether it is Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Abbott or any of the captains of capitalism, the language is clear. Free markets, small government, deregulation, privatisation and individual responsibility sum up the neoliberal ideology – the only responsibility of business is to increase its profits. As Milton Friedmanproclaims: “the only responsibility business has is to its shareholders… businessmen that take seriously their responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution… are preaching pure and unadulterated socialism”.

There is no confusion in the language describing the for-profit sector. Therefore it has no difficulty identifying its purpose or intended impact. It has a clear identity.

Identity in its simplest form is widely framed by the two common questions used when we’re asked to describe ourselves – what is your name and what do you do? The reply creates an instant “identity”. Language not only expresses identities but also constructs them, argues David Evans in his work Language and Identity.

“My name is David” and “I am a bus-driver” generates an almost immediate identity for David the bus-driver.

Imagine if in response to these two most commonly used questions to frame a person’s identity the answer given was: “My name is Mary, and Francis, and Mia and Zara, and I am a tractor-driver, nurse, sailor, window-cleaner and dentist”. Politeness would usually inhibit the observation that there may be a confusion of identity here.

It is hard to argue against the premise that a broad connection exists between language and identification. Language defines the group that we belong to, our status in the social stratification, and also determines the power we hold in our society. Our social identity is created by our language and also our future possibilities are framed by language. Language plays a major role in determining who we are and what we do.

Recently I was contacted by a person who wanted advice about how to set up a social enterprise as a “for-purpose, for-profit charity”. When I explained that perhaps the ACNC might have some issues with this description, the response was, “Well I’m new to this and I am very confused by the language used to describe what it is I think I want to do”.

This prompts the question: do the multitude of terms used to differentiate the not “market driven for-profit capitalism” sector strengthen the identification of that activity, or do they confuse, disintegrate and weaken its impact?

One could argue that the proliferation of terms to describe the sector allows for diversity, and each of these descriptions are pieces of a bigger picture.

One might also argue that there is no problem with the terms currently in use.

While we don’t want to argue over semantics (let’s just get on with it and do the job), language and its power of identification shouldn’t be ignored. When language divides and disintegrates, when it creates confusion of identity and purpose it is worth asking the question: what language might identify the not “market driven for-profit capitalism” sector in order to consolidate its identity, both for those embedded within it, and for those who look at it with scepticism?

Let’s consider some of the terms in use.

Take not for profit. No matter what anyone does under this identity, if they never make a profit (or more politely, a “surplus”) they don’t exist anymore. Perhaps “not-for-shareholders” might be a better but more clumsy identification?

Take for-purpose organisations. Name any for-profit company, charity, social club, farmers’ market or week-end lemonade stand that doesn’t have a purpose?

Take the impact economy. Even McDonalds has an impact – indeed a global impact.

Take conscious capitalism, championed by John Mackey, the co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a book published in 2014 with the sub-title Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business. Conscious capitalism acknowledges that while free-market capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress, people can aspire to achieve more – like community social responsibility and adding stakeholders to shareholders. The problem is that Pepsi & Co is identified as a company combining “performance with purpose” and an example of conscious capitalism because they are investing in drinks that are healthier for customers. Is that conscious capitalism, or a pivot to meet changing consumer demands in order to continue to maximise profits and shareholder value?

Take social enterprise/business. Now here is arguably a point of difference that clarifies identity. A social enterprise (or social business) in simple terms is a business that trades for a social purpose. Social enterprises are businesses that trade to intentionally tackle social problems, improve communities, provide people access to employment and training, or help the environment. Yet even within this bubble of clarity there are repetitive and ongoing attempts – led mostly by the peak social enterprise body in England – to water down the definition, generating further confusion of identity. The move by Social Traders in Australia to certify social enterprises and Social Enterprise Scotland to be clear on what a social enterprise is not, is to be welcomed both by those in the sector and those outside it.

Given all this individual language to identify the sector as “not market-driven for-profit capitalism”, is there a collective integrated option that can be applied at the macro level and include all the various descriptions at the micro level? Is there a term that reduces confusion and provides a clear frame for articulating an alternative social-political-economy?

A collective term used widely in Europe, but that appears to be used in a limited way in Australia is the social economy.

The social economy is used by practitioners (and academics) to describe all the activities that collectively put people before profits. It collectively identifies those activities that invest in people, in their capacities and creativity, and empowers them, creating quality jobs and providing training as well as prioritising social objectives.

As in the free market economy where enterprises are meant to generate a profit, this is also true for the social economy. But the point of differentiation in a social economy is that profit gained goes toward meeting social objectives, not primarily toward generating individual wealth. Wealth is more evenly distributed with direct benefit for the many, not just the few. By prioritising social objectives, the social economy contributes in an innovative way to tackling social, economic and environmental needs in society that have been overlooked or inadequately addressed by the private or public sectors.

Most importantly the social economy includes all those actors and activities that work for an alternative economic reality to that of free market neoliberal capitalism, including all those activities that could be called “for purpose”, “impact sector” and “ethical enterprises”, along with social enterprises, cooperatives, owner-employed businesses with a social purpose, as well as self-employed women and men who use their entrepreneurial skills to lift themselves and others out of poverty.

Importantly it is more than a description of a single activity within an economy. It seeks to collectively combine all elements of a social economy from the supply chain through to the end customer into one complete mosaic – a social economy. This is a consumer-led movement where people intentionally embrace across their business models a joined up “movement” from supply to end product.

Engaging and participating within the social economy means purchasing with a purpose as well as selling for a purpose. A simple example is choosing to purchase from a social enterprise even though that cost might be greater than in the general market. The purchasing provides the economic stimulus to drive the social economy with its social objectives generating greater benefit for more and more people, not just the few.

More importantly the social economy provides an integrated marketplace that combines an alternative socio-economic reality with a joined up social movement and a shared language as well as rich content for all its stakeholders – creating new opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and ideas that can improve outcomes for the social economy itself.

An integrated use of language with a single collective identity allows a range of actors across the sector to identify as one, in order to maximise the potential of their activities generating a significant impact with a purpose – a viable, collective, alternative marketplace to neoliberal capitalism and one that achieves mission and redistributes profits that benefit people and planet.

Identity is realising who we are at a personal level and also at a community level. To make such identification, language has been a salient feature of group membership and social identity.

Rather than confusing those of us embedded within the “social economy”, and even as a mechanism to generate collaboration rather than silos that compete, integrating identity will make the sector stronger. It will reduce confusion for those whose scepticism is facilitated by a disintegrated use of language. Clarity will also provide a powerful identity to describe a viable alternative to market-driven capitalism.

First featured in Pro Bono Australia

The post Why we need to think about the language and identity of the ‘social’ sector appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

As a marketeer I’ve always been fascinated with behavioural science and how to change the values and beliefs that drive our behaviours.

So far, the only time I’ve seen a real change in beliefs is when someone experiences an issue for themselves. It’s about lived experience, or human to human connection that makes the issue tangible and personal.

Having come from a family that struggled financially, I have the benefit of that lived experience. The knowledge that poverty is not so much a practical challenge, but an emotional one. The shame, helplessness and stress it causes are far more dangerous symptoms than not having food on the table.

It’s that lived experience that drives me and my commitment to building a more equal economy where no one has to live in poverty.

The thing about something like poverty or inequality, is that it’s not contagious. So it’s easy to ignore. It’s something that happens to other people, in other places.

On the other hand, Coronavirus could impact any of us. Rich or poor. Young or old. Black, white or something in between.

World leaders and movie stars have caught the virus. People with steady jobs were stood down overnight. Flourishing industries have been brought to their knees. Some of the richest nations have the highest number of cases.

Coronavirus has equalised us.

Coronavirus has reminded us all that we are all human.

It’s that knowledge – the fear that this could impact me and the people I care about – that has driven us to completely change the way we live our lives. We have seen behaviour change on a worldwide scale, practically overnight.

Therein lies an opportunity. Our society and economy has been upended. We can choose to take this moment to rediscover our shared humanity and use it to shape what we create on the other side of the pandemic.

If we can hang on to our shared humanity as we emerge from the crisis, I hope our collective empathy will grow.

We have unfortunately seen some disgusting examples of people capitalising on this crisis to the detriment of others. Corporate CEOs standing down their staff without pay while they retire to their mansions. Airlines quadrupling the price of flights for people that just need to get home. Fraudsters offering fake testing for the virus as a way to enter people’s homes and steal.

But we have seen so many more examples of hope, support and kindness. From live streaming of concerts, to parents continuing to pay their fees when schools have closed, to Woolworths offering jobs to Qantas staff, to (dare I say it) the conservative government’s fiscal stimulus packages that prioritises the most vulnerable.

Humans have an amazing innate drive to go out of our way to look out for each other. But for some reason, when we put on suits and enter board rooms, we tend to forget our shared humanity. The ‘us and them’ separation blinds us to the view from outside the boardroom walls.

But through this crisis, we are all as vulnerable as each other. We all need to work together and do our bit to get to the other side.

I hope the result of working together and building our empathy will be a commitment across our economy to strengthen the structures that give everyone the opportunity and support to live a decent and dignified life.

Structures like a bigger and more respected social enterprise ecosystem, so that the majority of businesses in our economy are social enterprises that put the health of people and our planet above profit.

Structures like a more expansive safety net – one that provides benefits that any politician themselves feels they could reasonably live on.

Structures like new partnerships (of equals) between the corporate and third sectors, that allow for cross-pollination of skills, experience and resources to increase the ability of both sectors to deliver more social impact.

We can’t let this crisis go to waste.

Let’s use this experience to remind ourselves that when it comes down to it, we are all one global tribe. We all depend on each other. And that when everyone is taken care of, we all benefit.

We have a once in a generation opportunity to hit the reset button on our economy and our society. Let’s use it wisely. And with empathy.

The post Could this crisis create the empathy we need to build a fairer society? appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

Thoughts can be like mosquitos. They can be small and noisy and buzz around endlessly in your head, sucking the lifeblood out of you. We all have mosquito thoughts. They are the thoughts that suppress and oppress us. I bet we also all know workplaces and organisations and social norms and political parties that, like mosquitos, generate thoughts that suck the life out of us. Thoughts and thinking that generate fear and annoyance, anxiety and stress.

Mosquitos endlessly buzz around looking to suck the life out of anything they can. At their worst, they poison systems, places, spaces and people, becoming a malaria that ends life and hope. At their most worst, systems and institutions can live with the malaria, slowly sapping the life out of all around them.

But thoughts can also be like dragonflies:

• Dragonflies transform – starting off as an ugly nymph living underwater, they become beautiful, dazzling flying creatures.
• Dragonflies do it differently – dragonflies can do things that no other insects can do with body structures no other insects have. They can fly backwards, loop the loop, hover and fly faster than any other insect.
• Dragonflies persevere – dragonflies pre-date the dinosaurs and can stay in the air all day without landing.
• Dragonflies can see multiple perspectives simultaneously – they have about 30,000 lenses in their eyes with 360 degree vision.
• Dragonflies embrace diversity – there are about 5,000 different species of dragonflies all over the world.

Thought leadership is more about the possibilities of the dragonfly than the endless monotonous buzzing of the mosquito.

There is always a battle for ‘thoughts’. An endless ongoing battle between mosquito thoughts and dragonfly thoughts.

And there is the related battle between mosquito actions, based on mosquito thoughts, and dragonfly actions, based on dragonfly thoughts.

This reflects the relationship between theory (thoughts) and practice (actions).

There are many destructive theories (buzzing around like mosquitos) that get embedded in destructive practice. Too often they lack critical reflection and provide a breeding ground for systemic malaria within people and institutions, countries and political parties, workplace cultures and home lives.

There is an urgent need for dragonfly theories that can be embedded in life-affirming practice that offers a renewed alternative to the poison of systemic malaria.

Our busyness over the past 12 months (no excuse) has slowed down our thinking, advocacy and actions for dragonfly-like practice.

We’re now back in the public domain to ‘challenge, imagine, transform’ thinking and practice wherever we can as part of the grander mosaic of people committed to replacing malaria systems with hope, justice and a safe future for people and planet.

Watch this space!

The post The return of the Dragonfly and thought leadership appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

The upending is caused by these sentences: “society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate.”

Short-term gains for shareholders at any cost are being questioned with a preference for ‘long-term value creation’. Not just for shareholders, but for all in society. This being championed by Blackrock – the world’s largest institutional investor – is a massive shake-up for business that we’ve been campaigning for in the third sector for many years.

Yet to our surprise, few of our third sector colleagues greet this change with anything less than suspicion and cynicism. We’ve become so used to condemning business for its hand in creating grotesque inequality, that our auto response is to condemn profit-makers and denounce neoliberalism as a diseased from of capitalism.

Grotesque and diseased it may be. As one politician said at a recent discussion about inequality and high pay, “we live in a capitalist system but the majority have no capital in that system”.

But that is why – and we may be naïve – Larry’s comments are welcome.

Profit generated ethically and distributed wisely is much needed.

We need new ways to understand and eradicate the shocking inequality that has been generated over the past three decades. We need new business models that generate profit for everyone. And we need new champions in the business world to help make it happen.

Profit is not the problem. The problem is how profit is generated and how it is distributed.

We all know about the business models that generate profit at the expense of most people and distribute profits to the few. What we need is better and more innovative businesses that generate profit ethically and distribute it to the many!

It’s one of the reasons The Dragonfly Collective has been busy developing a social innovation and enterprise strategy with Caritas over the last two years. The business model is based on profit generation – but the profit will enable people locked out of the labour market for many years to get a decent and dignified job.

It’s a social purpose business, and we’re making sure that social purpose is built into all elements of the business model. While also making profit.

And we’re questioning some of the business models available to achieve this as we go. The well-established social enterprise model continues to need a shake up. Too many are built on business models that are for ‘social good’ but pay their workers poorly. Too many have illogically adopted business practices, offering products that don’t necessarily have a net social benefit (a social enterprise brewery for example – we love our beer, but really, for a social good?).

It’s these models that are behind the growth of social impact investing – investment funds that are indistinguishable to any other investment vehicle offering debt finance to the social sector.

That’s why it’s time for an upending!

That’s why we are working to develop businesses that are profitable for everyone.

That’s why we welcome Larry Fink’s letter.

There’s no better example of what’s possible than the Catalan Integral Cooperative in Catalonia Spain. It’s a project to “build an alternative economy in Catalonia capable of satisfying the needs of the local community more effectively than the existing system, thereby creating the conditions for the transition to a post-capitalist mode of organisation of social and economic life”.

Sounds outrageous!

Too outrageous?

Let’s see as it emerges and grows what lessons it might have for all sectors of society – even more so what disruption it might be capable of. It just might show that it’s possible to generate profit and distribute it to the many, not just the few, creating a better community and dignified life for all.

Watch this space!

The post Profit sucks, or does it? appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

Just the other day we were reminded by a friend from Australia about why dragonflies are unique. Dragonflies lead, transform, embrace diversity and difference and have the ability to see multiple perspectives simultaneously.

Unfortunately, this way of seeing and thinking, and embracing diversity and difference seem to be in critical decline across the world. Instead, nationalism, fundamentalism, sameness, nativism, sexism and parochialism all shape a single view of the world, supported by lies and the demise of ‘truthfulness’ in public life.

More often than not, a single view of the world is an ugly one . . . we don’t need to rehearse the events of the past twelve months to evidence that! Embracing multiple perspectives is for ‘nowhere’ people as Teresa May eloquently put it: ‘citizens of the world are citizens of nowhere’.

Thinking differently or thinking critically appears to be systematically discouraged.

Alarmingly so it would appear from an article in The Wall Street Journal (Many Colleges Fail to Teach Thinking, June 6 2017) that reports the results of an annual test used across 200 universities and colleges in the US to measure how much better graduates are at thinking critically after their four years at university.

The results showed that “at some of the most prestigious flagship universities the average graduate shows little or no improvement in critical thinking over four years”. Graduates who scored basic or below basic, (more than 50% of the total), are described as not being able to “distinguish the validity of evidence and its purpose” or “determine the truth and validity of an argument”.

The Economist provides a bleaker picture with analysis that shows once people have determined a way of thinking, they feed their beliefs with news and books and papers that confirm what they already believe – “all these reinforce one another, and increasingly progressives and conservatives simply do not know each other”.

This behavior is not necessarily new. History is full of institutions and governments prescribing what their ‘citizens’ can and cannot read. Ask Christians how many of them have read the Koran. The same question can be asked of those of all faiths and none. How many ardent critics of faith-based communities have taken time to read the relevant sacred texts?

Opening ourselves up to other ways of seeing doesn’t mean we accept everything we see. For example, no matter how hard we try, we cannot seem to openly embrace the thinking behind one of the best selling politically conservative books by Dinesh D’Souza: The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.

But we can use the tools of critical thinking to look at both our own assumptions and the assumptions of others.

We can encourage ourselves and others to enjoy the challenge of looking at the world from several points of view and then making a decision based on an analysis that is informed by two simple questions – why are things the way they are and whose interest does that serve.

If the answer is always overwhelmingly our own interests, then perhaps it is time to think again.

Prior to the Brexit decision, we had no real understanding of why anyone would vote leave and still don’t. But the view of Yanis Varoufakis provided a window into a rational reason about what was needed and still needs repairing in the European Union – an uncomfortable provocation for us given our commitment to open and inclusive communities as ‘citizens of nowhere’. It informed and modified our view, but not our vote. Exploring the ways others interpret the world, and learning from that, is all part of what it means to think.

And it is not just at the macro level where we tend to adopt sameness and the safety of our ways of living and working. The workplace, institutions and organisations large and small across all sectors repeatedly utter those same dangerous words in the face of innovation or change: ‘don’t mess with it, that’s the way we’ve always done it around here’.

So what is the solution? How do we get people to think critically about who they are and what they believe in?

We agitate, we question. And we do not stop attempting to see multiple perspectives simultaneously. We take a view and then we work for change. It’s an ethical responsibility for people and planet.

As Varoufakis says: “progressives should never respect current trends . . . we must dare to dream . . . dare to dream and then work damned hard towards realizing that dream”.

And that is a bit like a dragonfly. They don’t respect the majority view that you can only fly in one direction, and they take a view of the world from every angle, transforming themselves in the process.

The post The dying art of critical thinking? appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

We throw our hands in the air in despair and disbelief and ask why? How is it possible that when we ask the public what they want, they choose Trump and Brexit?

But they didn’t choose Trump and Brexit – they chose ‘not this’. Not more of what I have now, because it’s not working for me. They voted for change.

And that offer of change was sold using very simple stories, based on deep emotional truths.

Both the Trump and Brexit campaigns used very clever communication.

US citizens were told they could “take our country back” and UK citizens told that they could “take back control”. And those ideas held huge appeal, because they were a) simple and easy to understand, and b) spoke directly to the lived experience of people who feel left out and left behind.

What voters bought was an offer of more control over the things that matter most to them, even if that offer came without a plan.

Trump picked one feeling and played to it: fear. The Brexiteers picked one feeling too: disempowerment.

Trump’s narrative was simple – good versus evil (or should we say heroes versus “bad dudes”). His solutions were also simple – build a wall, lock ‘them’ up, deport ‘them’, ban ‘them’ from entering the country at all. He spoke about incredibly complex issues in black and white.

Now, the real problem may be that 35 years of neoliberal politics (led by the the very political parties now proclaiming they can save people from the problems they created in the first place) has created an enormous divide between the haves and the have-nots. Inequality is increasing everywhere. But here’s what matters – that’s not the conversation that people are interested in.

It’s not facts or logic that engage. These kinds of choices are made using emotion – what people feel is right and just and fair. Voters feel more than they think.

Those on the other side of the argument watch on in various combinations of horror, despair, anger and shock as ill-thought-out appeals to basic human emotions win the day. And then there is talk that the people who made these choices are uneducated. It’s clearly that they’re not smart enough to understand the ramifications of their choices.

This talk leads to suggestions like reforming the education system, so people can learn about politics and neoliberalism and world affairs. Yes! Let’s teach people to think!

But we don’t have time to make that our preferred solution. Here’s where it’s us who need to stop and think.

We can lament all we like that ‘uneducated’ people are making bad choices, but what does it say about ‘educated’ people if we can’t effectively articulate our point of view? If we can’t give them something to really believe in? People should not need a university degree to understand what the hell we’re talking about.

This is a communications challenge.

The Trump and Brexit votes prove two things again – people are fed up and want more control over the things that matter to them, and the left is terrible at communications.

The left is far too theoretical and analytical. We talk about the complexities of poverty and inequality, suggesting we can’t improve education without improving housing, and that we can’t get people into decent housing without creating more jobs, and that we can’t do any of that unless we start with improving children’s experiences before age five. We do research and we write reports and we look at causal analysis and produce theories of change.

The work we’re doing is all necessary (now more than ever), but while we’re busy making everything as complicated as possible (because in reality, it is), the right gets up on a pedestal and says, “take back control”, and they win.

This is a challenge shared by the third sector more broadly. Too often we use different words (mostly jargon) to describe exactly the same thing.

Take volunteering for example. We could call it ‘volunteering’. And sometimes we do. But we also call it impact volunteering, community action, social activism, civil engagement or charity work. And we argue with each other about which word is most appropriate.

And then we wonder why everyone has stopped listening.

And the other thing we do really well in the third sector is continuously talk to ourselves. The third sector is great at sharing its woes and its ideas with itself.

We need a new narrative, for a much wider audience, that appeals to the heart. We need a simple emotional truth that resonates. It should be about people, told using stories. It should tap into deeply held values and beliefs.

It’s communications 101.

The right are already doing it terrifyingly well – whether deliberate or not – and they’re changing the shape of our world in the process.

So here’s the challenge for everyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum: we must find a way to do the same (as counterintuitive as it might feel). We most definitely need analysis and plans and evidence and new policies and lots of fresh and radical ideas. But we also need a much better story if we’re going to create the critical mass we need.

And our story must turn the narrative of fear on its head. Ultimately what ‘taking back control’ is about is feeling valued, feeling heard and having opportunities.

It’s about belonging. Belonging in a community where every member of that community is valued.

And that’s a narrative we can use. It’s simple, and has emotional appeal.

We need to say it boldly. And proudly. And most importantly, as one.

This is the narrative that belongs to the left – and we must claim it before the right beat us to it again.

Theresa May has already promised “a country that works for everyone” while Donald Trump has named himself a “President for all Americans”. That story should not be theirs to own.

We’ve had two major blows in short succession this year. At this point we can choose to despair. Or curl up in a ball in defeat. Or move to Australia. But now, more than ever, we need to fight back. Now more than ever, we need to work together (using models like collective impact as we’ve suggested) and create communities where people belong and where everyone has what they need to live a decent life.

And we have to share this ambition and all the work we’re already doing using simple, emotional stories.

There’s no time to waste. Let’s get going right now.

The post Post Trump & Brexit: the communications challenge appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

We watched the debate over Brexit with complete dismay. It has been utterly breathtaking to watch people eat up the propaganda then ask for a second helping, and respond to empty slogans and lies with cheers and standing ovations.

People are disaffected. They feel resentment and alienation and have very real and legitimate anxieties about access to public services, affordable housing and secure jobs.

The Leave campaign tapped directly into that fear and anxiety, and it did it beautifully. It used clear and simple messages that had little (if anything) to do with facts and everything to do with the loss of control that the majority of British people feel over their own lives. The vote to ‘take back control’ was not about Europe (evident in the spike in Google searches for ‘what is the EU’ after the vote), but about people feeling completely disempowered.

So then we must ask, what bigger agenda is at play here.  This is what George Monbiot calls this ‘the zombie doctrine’.

While the original definition of a zombie was ‘a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft’, today it’s used to describe a creature capable of movement, but not of rational thought. In popular fiction, a zombie is a person who is or appears lifeless, apathetic, or completely unresponsive to their surroundings and who devours human flesh.

There is indeed something zombie like about the way many of us are far too quick to allow bite size, emotionally-charged propaganda to cloud the facts.

Take the views of Dover residents as one small example. A poll showed they believe their town is overrun with migrants, who appear to be responsible for every conceivable local woe – taking local jobs, cluttering up the NHS, and of course living on benefits while they work at the jobs they have stolen from the locals. But the fact is that 93% of Dover’s population were born in the UK. Immigration becomes a useful scapegoat for local people’s frustrations, and in the face of clear facts a completely different story is created (a story that resonates powerfully because it cleverly speaks directly to people’s experience of disempowerment).

We live in a time characterised by enormous challenges – the devastation of the natural world, a crisis of inequality, an obsession with growth and profit, financial meltdowns and an increasing decline in the quantity and quality of the political debate about how to respond.

And yet we don’t (or can’t) name the philosophy on which this situation is built – the underlying drivers remain unnamed in popular culture. We name communism and socialism as the evils of past history and assume we are safe in the hands of capitalism.

The real ideology remains nameless and faceless. This is the ideology that has produced the middle class aspiration for wealth, but ultimately rewards only those who are already wealthy with more and rips the welfare state from under everyone else’s feet. The ideology that promises abundance, but leaves the majority living with the shambles of crushed expectations, broken dreams or still in an original place of poverty. The ideology that turns those broken dreams into fear and resentment, resulting in standing ovations to destructive messages about ‘taking back control’ or a ‘British Independence Day’  by those holding their crumbled expectations in their hands.

The ideology we are naming here is of course neoliberalism, a doctrine that has become pervasive but is seldom recognised. This ideology shapes the very fabric of our society so that we unconsciously accept what was once unacceptable, even if we are the losers. As George Monboit notes:

“Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.”

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. It is a zombie doctrine that staggers on anonymously.

In a short essay written in 1946 (today it would have been a blog!) – Why I Write – George Orwell offered the following justification for his relentless commitment to writing: ‘political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind’.

George Orwell saw the need to counter lies with truth. He wanted to unmask the powers, to identify the systems that hid behind their anonymity. He wanted to shake off the zombie doctrine where people passively accept a political system that feeds on their own flesh.

The zombie doctrine of neoliberalism is real. And it flourishes as its proponents grow fat off the system they deliver. Neoliberalism feeds on the poor and the middle classes – people like you and me – even though few of us are aware we are being devoured, or apparently know how to apply an antidote.

The vote to leave the EU is a disastrous example of the power of the zombie doctrine. Now more than ever we need an alternative that unities rather than divides and creates empowerment instead of resentment.

While many people are outraged at the vote to leave the EU, feelings of anger towards those who voted to leave are misplaced (and will only reinforce the deep divisions that led us here in the first place). The real enemy is far bigger than any individual, and it will take all of us working together to counter it. We cannot allow the likes of Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson to continue to gain strength from the zombie doctrine and let it go unnamed and unaccounted for.

We must not give up now. We must use Brexit as a spark that reignites our passion to create a more just world.

It is out of these darkest moments that the energy for change can drive us. Jo Cox MP, who was assassinated last week, said ‘we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us’.

Let’s regroup and work together in the battles ahead, and show that nothing will stop us.

For inspiration and courage, read some of the messages of solidarity on the Avaaz ‘message of hope’ page.

The post Zombies and Brexit: how on earth did we end up here? appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.

Some food for thought to get the year started – here’s an interview with Collaborate where we talk about the messy process of collaborating for change. It’s only by aligning our passions, ideas and resources that we’ll ever achieve the scale of change needed to really tackle inequality in all its forms.

We’d love to hear about your experiences with collaboration.

Interview with Collaborate.

The post An interview with Collaborate sharing our experience with collaboration appeared first on The Dragonfly Collective.