I started my exploration on governance seeking a balanced approach to the question of compassionate practice in green movements. At first, I had been looking at compassionate activism, a well-established tradition in Nonviolence Movements, and the opportunities for translating it into mainstream belief in at least some sectors of environmentalism.
However, it soon dawned on me that promoting compassion only on the part of activists was a lopsided way of going about it. My "epiphany" at the Orchidea retreat had pushed me to explore the role of enemy images in all perspectives of environmental discourse (and broader still, to labor and educational social movements). Therefore, I needed a "conceptual scaffolding" that could be equally applicable to activism/social movements, business strategy or bureaucratic management.
Thus, my original focus on compassionate environmental activism was transformed into a notion of compassionate environmental governance.
Image & Identity Theories
The possible examples of compassionate environmental goveranance, or even of activism for that matter, had very little of a conceptual foundation to offer. Sarvodaya Shramadana centered its work on meeting a list of needs on the ground (or rather, basic satisfiers), Engaged Buddhism had ethical roots that were difficult to transfer into the Latin American context, and Green Sangha never responded to my emails. Other initiatives, like those of the NVC social change and climate change groups, were too focused on the practical and not on changing schemes on social organization.
This then led me to Cottam's Image Theory, to social Identity Theory and to Environmental Framing. However, these once more where on a different side of the spectrum. Image Theory, derived from political psychology analysis from the times of the cold war, was predominantly focused on inter-state perceptions. Identity theory had a strong focus of inter-ethnicity. Environmental framing seemed to have primarily an interpretative approach, and therefore an application that suggested a compassionate framework was hard to implement.
Integrally-informed and Deliberative Approaches
Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, and its derivations in the fields of ecology and sustainability, seemed to provide a better suited lens for the analysis I had in mind. Spiral dynamics allowed for an understanding of paradigms that could not communicate with one another, while AQAL, especially the four quadrants, allowed for a balanced assessment of subjective and objective drivers for the development of enemy images.
My discovery of deliberative democratic theory provided me with a way of framing the concerns of the tibetan concept of Drala (beyond enemies) by using a term that was more palatable to decision-makers than compassion. Deliberation represents a way of representing the notion of compassion in a similar light to how it is expressed by the Buddhist teachings of skillful means. Democratic deliberation involves listening without prejudgement, self-reflection, as well as the commitment to finding a solution (along with a belief in the fairness, truth and beauty of the "better argument").
Instrumentalizing through Subjectivity
Where my study is challenging, but also where it promises to contribute in an innovative way, is in my choice of approaching inquirty through the loose-ended use of political psychology over the more established framework (for this subject matter) of political ecology.
----
There's been a hiatus of about 10 weeks between my original writing of these notes and my new reading of them and present attempt to elaborate further. I am struck at the timeliness of some of these ideas and their potential for unraveling (exploding?) into powerful transformative concepts. I'm amazed that last year, Deliberative Democracy was the topic of two major international conferences: one of the Environmental & Public Policy Division of the Association for Conflict Resolution, and another one at Princeton University.
----
Okay, it's back to find the thread of where I was going to with this article. Summarizing some of the ideas of my previous article (in Spanish), when it comes to weaknesses in environmental governance, subjectivities have been very much neglected in the analysis of the hurdles to good environmental governance.
Political ecology and mainstream environmental policy analyses tend to focus on systemic factors, particularly human pressures on the resource base, complex constraints in ecological resilience, economic drivers and institutional arrangements.
However, intersubjectivity (people's capacity to reflect, lifestyle aspirations, identity) and intra-subjectivity (categorization of others, group identities, discourse) also have an important role to play in allowing environmental management to be fair, effective and consistent with resource capacities and constraints. Subjectivity has an particularly essential role to play where it comes to the democratization of environmental governance.
Although starting from the vantage point of subjectivities might feel like going out on a limb, it is actually coherent with the approach of modern schools of conflict management and peacebuilding ... from Fisher & Ury's principled negotiation that begins by separating the person from the problem; to Rosenber's Nonviolent Communication model that instructs looking beyond a person's thoughts into her feelings in order to identify her needs.
By dealing with intrapersonal (reflexive) elements and interpersonal issues, it is possible to move into what Giddens refers to as "generative politics" and therefore to build the necessary trust and lead to the collective configuration of new attitudes, relationships and institutions.
However, this can only be accomplished if there is both competent facilitation and also if the stakeholders have the necessary skills and the appropriate predisposition to engage in this level of democratic practice. Therefore, it is important not to understate the importance of preparatory work.
All this can be equated to working on the emotional intelligence of the "field" (in Kurt Lewin's terms), both in terms of the stakeholders, their attitudes, their expectations and the institutional arrangements.
Democracy as a Bridge and as a Provocation
The transformative aspect of this process is sough in part by using democracy as both a bridge, that offers stakeholders the possibility of generate trust based on the realization of mutual needs (like inclusion, respect and resolution); and as a provocation, guiding them into cognitive dissonance with their stereotypes and narrow prejudices about those who have opposing views.
The process seeks to put the espoused democratic values into practice through facilitated exchanges, as well as to use democracy as a the very subject of the discussion.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment