Transformation: disruption and conversation

Disruption 

Having unpacked the subdivision of the public conversation, in Life’s 3 conversations recently.  I now want to explore why the character of community and democratic conversations matter to transformation. Because storytelling is so important to the disruption of the status quo, where dialogue is seen as action in the pursuit of greater equality.

Conversations within organisations can have an impact on the story told about their purpose and the worth of their activities for the populations they serve. When workers get together to share their personal stories, their strength and energy have the potential to influence the organisation’s storytelling in a wider context. This has significance in a society where the marginalisation of certain groups is pronounced, and as a result the voice of certain individuals/groups are absent from the market conversation. Viewed as a form of respectful activism, a space for community and democratic conversation, encourages the participation of silenced or alternative voices, and helps highlight positive differences at group levels. In turn, I would hope, the energy created for shared interest can disrupt an established power imbalance and go on to challenge unacknowledged inequality more widely.

For those organisation's situated within the market sector, the focus on monetary quantity is understandable. I'm not saying it's about good or bad conversations, but it is about disrupting an over dominant narrative: a focus on money outside its place of relevance. As the reams of well-being and sustainability literature suggest the consumerism driving excessive growth is corrosive to community: our relationships and our health (James, 2007; Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Therefore, I think that holding a space for community/democratic dialogue encourages people to talk differently about shared interest, in a personal way that re-establishes a little balance to cultural bias (Agar, 1994). This may encourage members of marginalised groups more specifically to interrupt an increasingly overbearing financial rectitude that reduces what matters to what has a cost. Striping what matters to cost is limiting and disempowering, because while equated to neutrality numbers cannot qualify adequately what has worth or value to people. Martin (1998) suggests that where monetary interests are wrongly assumed to be efficient accounts, they do very little more than secure the notion that all is equal.  Therefore, when a market conversation is deemed efficient, yet only deals with technical knowledge, it is not value-free. Rationality may be questioned in terms of democratic direction, because financial conversations often lack the moral impact on individual choice and the long-term consequence at a societal level (McGilchrist, 2012; Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013). Viewed thus any resulting inequality may be ignored as the unavoidable collateral damaged of growth (Speth, 2008). While daily practice may accommodate for the outcomes of inequality, decisions that are taken without acknowledgment of disadvantage at a cultural level are likely to do little to challenge growing inequality that is unsustainable (Ehrenfeld & Hoffman, 2013).

Shared passion: What makes your heart sing?

The character of community and democratic dialogue fuels the intentionality behind coproduction. As articulated by Edgar Cahn in the story of Timebanking, thinking together is a celebration, a non-financial exchange that seems to help groups affirm belonging and possibility. Where financial considerations do not dominate the conversation there is potential to build social capital that is quite literally priceless. Positive feelings, according to well-being research, provide a 'broaden-and-build' attitude that not only facilitates knowledge development in the individual, but acceptance and respect within groups. Put simply, when happy we explore further and become less judgemental to difference. Community conversations may facilitate our ability to be more account-able by re-negotiating shared ideas and joint movement on a regular basis.

Viewed as a route to joint knowledge base, learning supported by the connection of freely chosen relationships. As such conversations can act to secure an understanding of democratic action and community interest.

When you ask people about what it is like being part of a great team, what is most striking is the meaningfulness of the experience. People talk about being part of something larger than themselves, of being connected, of being generative... Real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human. Through learning we re-create ourselves.  Through learning we become able to do something we were never able to do. Through learning we repercieve the world and our relationship to it. Through learning we extend out capacity to create, to be part of the generative process of life. (Senge, 2006, p. 13)  

What’s important is the nature of freely exchanged strategic ideas that creates new possibilities for groups; as relational endeavour provides both the personal energy and possible direction for change (Kretzmann & McKnight, 2003). It is the storytelling that has potential to change an organisation's story. Because of the way organisational interests are shared in public [in reports, documents, social media, press releases], they have an impact on how activity is perceived across localities.  So for example, the focus on cost in an annual report from a support service may suggest how workers understand ‘care’; and in turn this will affects the understanding of what has worth or value for the people in receipt of the help provided?

The impact, therefore, of in-and-across-house network can serve to secure and extend the worth and value of shared learning and negociated purpose as a lever to change.  

© April 2016 Laura (Mole) Chapman

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New York: Harper Collins.

Cahn, E. (2000). No More Throw-away People, The Co-Production Imperative. . Washington: Essential Books.

Ehrenfeld, J., & Hoffman, A. (2013). Flourishing: A Frank Conversation about Sustainability. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.

James, O. (2007). Affluenza - How to be successful and stay sane. London: Vermillion.

Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (2003). Building Communities from the Inside Out. Chicago: ACTA Publications.

Martin, P. (2005). Making happy people, the nature of happiness and its origins in childhood. London: Harper Colins.

McGilchrist, I. (2012). The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning. Yale: Yale University Press .

Munro, R. (1998). Ethics and Accounting: the Dual Technologies of Self. In M. Parker, Ethics and Organization (pp. 197 - 221). London: Sage .

Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline, The art & practice of the learning organisation. London: Random House.

Speth, J. G. (2008). The bridge at the edge of the world : capitalism, the environment, and crossing from crisis to sustainability. [Kindle edition]. New Haven:: Yale University Press.

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level, Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.