Principles and Ground Rules
The Social Theory (ST) of a sustainable, collaborative learning society is built on three principles: one axiom - a basic principle taken for granted - and two injunctions - directives telling what should be done. A number of ground rules is derived from the principles that can be seen as consequences of applying these principles. Of course, it is up to you, as a reader, whether you will accept these principles and rules or not. But even if you do not, we believe there is much to gain if you take notice of the implications of the principles on which sustainable societies are built. It may broaden your worldview, which is - by the way - a key result of applying one of the principles.
Alternative navigation
The principles and ground rules provide an alternative way of reading this book. Instead of reading it cover to cover, there is an octopus-like navigation structure on offer, which digs deeper into the principles and rules laid out in this chapter. Each principle or rule is further detailed in aspects addressing a particular side of it. These aspects in their turn refer to statements that are made in chapters and sections in this book. Each statement elucidates an aspect to help indicate its meaning. Starting from a principle, rule, aspect or statement, a reader can navigate to adjacent principles, aspects or statements. This provides a way to unfold the bigger picture of ST and its underlying foundation to suit the reader’s interest.
Axiom: We got to move
Principle: We got to move.
Aspect: Reflexive Domain
Aspect: Tradition
The overarching principle of ST is: we got to move. A statement meant as a fact of life - there is no other option but to move, because living can be equated with movement - as well as a call to action - we must move due to changing circumstances.
People are social creatures. We cannot function independently from each other. That is, we are in need of and respond to each other. The acts of one person influence the acts of others and vice versa. Action means reaction, resulting in a constant process of (ex)change and hence: movement. Everyone acts according to their own identity, which is partly reflected in the worldview someone holds. A worldview is defined here as the framework of ideas and beliefs which form a global description through which an individual, group or culture sees and interprets the world and interacts with it. Also, in principle, everyone acts autonomously, although because of power issues at play we might be forced to do something against our will.
Recognizing and acknowledging that we depend on each other, implies that we have care responsibilities towards one and another. Care responsibility can be seen as a moral obligation. As we shall see, this ground rule has far-fetching consequences since it requires that persons and organizations reach out beyond their boundaries to act responsibly by addressing the needs of others.
Ground rule: Co-dependency implies care responsibility.
Aspect: Ethics of Care
When we interact, a difference can be experienced in what is stated and in how we act (e.g., worldviews collide, and people or actions are no longer in concord with each other). This difference is not something negative, but should be embraced, as it forces us to move one way or another. When no difference is experienced, we are stuck in the same groove, in a way. This might be comfortable and functional for a while, but in the end, it can amount to a standstill. That is, an individual, or a group for that matter, does not act and react anymore, and metaphorically speaking, ceases to exist.
During an interaction, we try to match what is being said with our worldview. Sometimes the content of a message resonates with our worldview and the worldview is adapted to a certain extent to incorporate the content coherently. Our previous worldview has changed slightly. However, when there is no overlap in worldviews at all, what is being conveyed often is simply rejected. Little or no change has been reached. In rare cases, a completely different worldview will be adopted, when what is experienced has opened one’s eyes in such a way, that one can no longer accept the old way of looking at things.
Thus, by interacting with each other, our worldviews are potentially shaped and reshaped continuously, and this consequently will (re)shape our actions: we are moving. The distinctions people make, and how and with whom they (inter-)act, are strongly determined by their identity: who am I and what do I do, what are my beliefs and thoughts, and what is important to me? Identity, in turn, is shaped by the experiences and interactions people have. In short, we live in what is known as a reflexive domain in which one reaction leads to another, and so forth. Because of this mechanism, shared meaning arises. In this context, shared meaning can also be called culture: who are we, what do we do, and what do we value? Culture, like an undercurrent, might not always be visible or explicated, but is always present and influences the way people act. Also, culture is not carved in stone. It evolves by means of interactions that shape and reshape people’s identities, which is reflected in their worldviews.
This all means that, because of people being the social creatures they are, all living in a reflexive domain, they are continuously on the move. We do not have a choice in this matter. Besides having an implicit reason to move, we also have to face often large-scale environmental and man-induced disruptions. We have to adapt to them, and we have to do this collectively in order to counteract them effectively. By all accounts, we got to move. The central question repeated here is:
If we continuously got to move and based on our culture, adjust to changing circumstances, how can we do this in such a way that it will be meaningful and thus worth the effort?
Injunction 1: Create room for change
Principle: Create room for change.
Aspect: Systems Thinking
Aspect: Critical Reflection
Although there may be good reasons to act in order to deal with problematic situations, this does not necessarily mean that we can indeed act because the room for change might be lacking. People hold diverse worldviews over particular issues that might hamper progress. Frequently, clashing worldviews are caused by limited views on issues. Everyone has blind spots: you do not know what you do not see. Moreover, you are not even aware of your blind spots, otherwise they are not blind spots in the first place.
In case of absence of room for change, people’s worldviews need to be broadened. This is a process of establishing mutual understanding. Mutual understanding in the context of ST means explicating worldviews by postponing judgement. It aims at gaining a wider understanding of the issues at stake and exposing underlying mechanisms that undermine the development of certain individuals or groups. It starts with taking time to explicate the issues, the intricacies between them and the worldviews, i.e., values, beliefs and (perceived) constraints of stakeholders, which might influence the way they interact. Worldviews must be both recognized as well as acknowledged, which requires an open attitude, including postponing judgements. The process of explicating worldviews is in itself already an intervention, resulting in, for instance, eye-openers, which will change initial worldviews of those involved in the process. In this way, room for change is created, as underscored in the ground rule: diversity in opinions is a basic and essential right.
Ground rule: Diversity in opinions is a basic and essential right.
Aspect: Worldview
Worldviews can be explicated by critically examining the values and beliefs people hold. This requires a shift from first-order observations – the way particular issues are viewed – to second-order observations – the viewpoint that is applied. It is like looking through glasses: the way you interact is filtered through a lens of your own making. Thus, a second-order point of view focusses on the lens itself thereby exposing blind spots. You need someone else to be able do so.
Injunction 2: Determine the right direction
Principle: Determine the right direction.
Aspect: Cultural Identity
Aspect: Right Things
When people want to move in a way that is meaningful to all of them, they will have to decide upon what they jointly value most. They must take a stance, which is what people typically do. This step is no longer free of value. People explicitly make certain values more important than others. This way, they move from individual meaning (captured in worldviews) to shared meaning. Shared meaning does not mean that people always fully agree, but that they understand each other’s perspectives well enough to accept them. They agree upon and act according to a set of values that they together have chosen to be shared meaning. These values represent their cultural identity. Just as culture, shared meaning is not static and can change over time. But there is only one way of achieving shared meaning and that is through real conversation with all involved.
In every situation, there is an undercurrent present which contains people’s identity, culture and the values that most influence their interactions. However, this undercurrent is not necessarily shared. It often is not visible or explicated, but it will always be present and influences the way people interact. If people want to move into a direction that is meaningful to all of them, they must start to reveal and discuss this undercurrent. In practice, this means they have to take a look at the worldviews present in a problematic situation at hand as well as the values that lie underneath it. Despite the differences, they will have to focus on “What binds us within this situation? Which values do we share?” In some cases, it turns out there is enough common ground, and thus shared meaning, to move into the desired direction. In other cases, however, differences in opinions, perspectives and values might seem harder to overcome and require more effort from all stakeholders involved to find ways to move forward with perhaps very small steps. If no consent can be reached, we should rely on democratic processes to make hard choices. However, the activities centered around mutual understanding and shared meaning are geared to make a democratic intervention of this kind a last resort.
Moving into a meaningful direction requires an iterative process of different types of dialogues: taking turns between verification - are we doing things in the right way? - and validation - what are the right things to do for us? This does not always come easy, but, when people know they are moving into a meaningful direction, it should be worth the effort. When they agree upon what they jointly value most and in which direction they want to go, differences in views on how to get there can be overcome and they can continue to move.