An excerpt of my thesis

I am awaiting the final feedback from my external thesis reader anyday now. Once his assessmet has been received, my thesis will be finalized. It's been a long 19 month journey.

Get your own - Open publication

For now, I would like to share this excerpt containing the first two chapters. It's available online for reading at issu.com, you can find it at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/garudasofia-te

I welcome your feeback. Your insights are very valuable to me.

Cheers,

Sergio.

New Thesis Title

I believe I have finally settled on a final title for my thesis.

Here is the new version___

Reshuffling democracy:
Exploring deliberative environmental governance in Costa Rica’s electric sector

And here is the old version it replaces___

Rediscovering Democracy:
Deliberating environmental insecurities in the Costa Rican power sector

----------------

Now, for my thinking about the change.

Change 1: Taking out Rediscovering / Replacing it with Reshuffling.

Granted, it's a weirder word, but it's a lot less pretentious. Mostly, I think it more accurately describes what this thesis intends to do in a number of ways:

BAREJEMELO?. This thesis addresses reflexive citizenship (drawing on the ideas of Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens) and deliberation (an emerging theme in environmental politics), as resources for nurturing environmental governance. A common Costa Rican colloquialism, between to people in conversation trying to understand each other, is "barajeme eso?", which means "come again"? or, can you restate what you're saying in a way that helps me better understand it?.... Thus, reshuffling entails an effort to make one's ideas (in this case about democracy) more accessible to the understanding of others. Similarly, the work of this thesis seeks to make the views about democracy held by some stakeholders more accessible for reflection by others with different views.

THE BIGGER PICTURE, THE WHOLE DECK. The central methodological resource of this thesis is the Q-Deck, a set of cards containign statements that are representative of the "Concourse" -- the domain of everything people might think about a topic. The process of completing a Q-Deck, while in some ways was just an intermediate step of this thesis, was a major intellectual production effort and a huge innovative leap of resourcefulness and creativity for the context of the research community (the University for Peace Department of Environment, Peace and Security) where this method was used. The shuffling aspect also relates to what the elaboration of this deck represents... taking all the cards (all the ideas), bringing them together, and integrating them into a new gestalt that is open for the analysis and the reconfiguration (through sorting) of each participant in the research.

THE REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER. Finally, the ultimate goal of the thesis is to foster the thinking about a model of governance where choice, responsibility and power are redistributed, into a reconfigured structure of civil society/State/private sector relations. In this sense, reshuffling democracy as a governance practice involves a redistributive action, like shuffling and dealing does with a deck of cards. Everything is brought back together and rearranged so as to meet everyone's needs more equitably.

In all these senses, the thesis is proposing a way of approaching democracy that attempt a different view of how the "different pieces of the elephant" in each stakeholder's vantage point fit together, and that can contribute to integrate the particular claims to legitimacy and justice that each side holds.

However, it is not really "rediscovering democracy" for anyone, since it is not seeking a higher claim to truth over the views of democracy that people already have, but instead it is just trying to "play" at combining them in new ways.

Change 2: Taking out Deliberating environmental insecurities / Replacing it with Exploring deliberative environmental governance

It's not really about vulnerabilities or securitization. The focus on the thesis is not on environmetnal insecurities (neither in the sense of identifying vulnerabilities nor in the sense of analyzing the securitizing discourse). The focus of the thesis is how the crisis of legitimation has collapsed environmental governance, how underlying views of democracy are keeping people entrenched in the polarization, and how discussing democracy can help overcome the stalemate. While environmental security undoubtedly deteriorates under conditions of a deadlock in environmental governance, that is not what this thesis is seeking to demonstrate.

But it IS about a "reframed" concept of governance. Deliberative Environmental Governance synthesizes a new approach to environmental governance... It synthesizes the willingness to be participatory, accountable, solution oriented and geared towards generating public judgment (which unlike public opinion, means that “people have struggled with the issue, thought about it in their own terms, and formed a judgment they are willing to stand by”. (O’Donnell, 1993, “Judgment defined and tested” paragraph 1). It is a synthesis that is not substantially in the existing literature (although some work on deliberative environmental policy is).

And it is an exploratory work. While this needs to be stressed a lot more in my writing, this thesis is a completely exploratory work... It isn't the definitive research on deliberative democracy and the environment simply because it is the first work done about it in this part of the world. So while I cannot expect to accomplish a specific outcome of deliberation, halfway through my research I'm loaded with charts of new territory I've explored.

So there, in a lot of words, is the explanation for the choice of my first words to describe my thesis... the title.

A study on subjectivities and the "emotional intelligence" of energy governance

Governance as a detour from compassion in social change

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.

Usando la democracia como constructo: Subjetividades y Governabilidad Ambiental

La Teoria Integral de Ken Wilber usa el recurso de los "cuatro caudrantes" para analizar cualquier fenómeno:

Modelo de los Cuatro Cuadrantes de Ken Wilber

Como vemos, hay dos ejes... Uno vertical: de lo individual a lo colectivo (from human agency to communion), y Uno horizontal: de lo subjetivo a lo medible (de lo interno a lo externo).

En general, la ecologia politica se concentra en lo Sistemico (Lower Right), con algun grado de insercion de la praxis, y hasta cierto punto de la cultura, y excluyendo totalmente la experiencia.

Por otra parte, la psicologia politica se concentra en la experiencia, con cierto grado de representacion de la cultura y la praxis (pero casi nada de lo sistemico).

La ecologia, generalmente va en lo Sistemico, en tanto que la biologia pura va en lo de comportamiento, que es el cuadrante que aborda todo lo que ocurre con y en los organismos.

Hablar de Integral (o de integrally informed approaches) entonces es hablar de una epistemologia que reconoce concientemente que existen los cuatro aspectos, aunque no necesariamente que haga un trato totalmente equilibrado de los cuatro cuadrantes (porque esto podria ser mas ambicioso de los que un abordaje puede hacer).

En mi analisis, yo elijo entrarle ANTE TODO a las subjetividades, basado en el hecho de que es el elemento que tiende a quedarse por fuero en los analisis que se han hecho hasta el momento del problema. Por lo tanto, mi abordaje es mas de psicologia politica que de ecologia politica.

Sin embargo, conversaciones con profesores me han convencido de que un abordaje UNICAMENTE de subjetividades viene a ser indefendible, porque queda expuesto, al hablar de percepciones de la injusticia, a la pregunta de si no hay en realidad injusticias absolutas (objetivas). Es por eso que he dejado de lado, como encuadre teorico, el "recurso" de las imágenes de enemigo (o sea, la teoria de los encuadres de identidad y caracterizacion - como construyen los grupos imagenes de sí mismos [in-group] e imagenes de los demás [out-groups]).

Ahora, esto no puede querer decir que el enfoque de subjetividades es inútil para entender el problema, porque esta seria un ENORME contradiccion entre lo micro y lo macro. Esto puesto que vos y yo sabemos que en CONFLICTOS, uno NO PUEDE EMPEZAR POR OTRA PARTE QUE NO SEA POR LAS SUBJETIVIDADES. Y si esto es cierto en la escala individual o interpersonal, tiene que ser cierto en la escala social/polis/comunitaria. Sobre todo, tiene que ser cierto una escala que sea apropiada para estudiar la gobernabilidad [o gobernanza, diria su cuñada Marta -- que que dicha que pronto la veremos, aunque sea bretiando para UIC´N].

Si uno esta interesado en ver las subjetividades, y no quiere sumirse unicamente en como las personas perciben la situacion y nada mas, entonces lo que queda por hacer es analizar como las SUBJETIVIDADES CONTRIBUYEN a crear la situacion de ingobernabilidad, sin negar que existen tambien condiciones ESTRUCTURALES que tambien CONTRIBUYEN a genera la ingobernabilidad. Entonces, tomada la decisi[on de que el punto de partida es LA SUBJETIVIDAD, queda la pregunta, adonde quiero seguir este asunto de la subjetividad?

Por ahi de Diciembre, la respuesta a la que llegue yo se conectaba con la subjetividad relacionada con dos cosas: la participacion y la capacidad de percibir la validez en los puntos de vista del otro. Resulta que estos dos temas, en el plano de lo colectivo, la corriente de pensamiento/analisis que les esta entrando mas fuerte es el de la Democracia Deliberativa. Ahora, como vos muy bien lo decis, esta no es una corriente de pensamiento que exista en la sociedad tica. So what? La conservacion (desde Pittier a Holdrige) y la ecologia politica tambien son importadas.

Yo veo la Deliberacion como el hilo que permite conectar reflexion (upper left) y dialogo (lower left), con praxis (upper right) y manejo adaptativo (lower right), porque es el puente entre el discurso y el dialogo (y la posibilidad de la "disonancia cognoscitiva") y la praxis (de participar Y escuchar, asi como de actuar).

Finalmente, en cuanto al punto de enfoque, yo no considero que lo fundamental en este tema sea el dialogo interno respecto a los parques nacionales, porque esto seria poner ante todo la dimension territorial. Yo creo que la dimension que mas esta pesando es la dimension de equidad, pero CADA GRUPO ESTA DEFINIENDO LA EQUIDAD DE FORMA DIFERENTE. Por eso precisamente es que un abordaje de ecologia politica se queda corto, porque no reconoce que hay DIFERENTES VALORES EN CUANTO A EQUIDAD. La deliberacion es un medio para NEGOCIAR entre esos valores.

Hasta aqui lo dejo por ahora.