Let’s get South Africa Talking (4) 21 April 2017
A dialogue on the day
Hi Stan, I believe you were the provocateur of the day?
Correct, we were focusing on the leadership crisis facing our country and particular the degree of social agitation so evident at present.
How did you approach the topic?
Well, as you are aware, the Leadership Dialogue places emphasis on systemic issues and the role that our mental models play out in our conversation and beliefs. The interplay of mental models as we engage with the world gives rise to narratives which are an essential part of our construction of meaning and engagement in the world. In fact, we speak of agency as the way our beliefs are structured in our social interactions. Yes, so understanding the prevailing narratives and finding ways of engaging with them becomes our main work as members of the Leadership Dialogue.
Systemic Issues?
You know, one of the early leaders in the systems thinking movement make the rather startling assertion that systems thinking begins when we are first able to view the world from the perspective of someone else. In this way we are able to appreciate the big picture and are able to see something of the competing views.
You place emphasis on this word, “dialogue”. Do you mean conversation?
That’s part of it. Our mental models are our symbolic interpretation of the world. These ideas feed into our stereotypes. We often get very caught up in “discourses”, which is different to dialogue.
How so?
Well discourses are the conversations we get locked into, the rhetoric which we fall into and around which we construct so much of our sense of identity. Dialogue is the process of learning to step outside of our discourses, suspending judgement, and really trying to understand the world from the point of view of others.
That’s not easy!
Agreed! We are so caught up in our own belief systems and the stories we make up and contribute to in order to validate our sense of identity and belonging.
The stories we make up?
Yes, the narratives we participate in. This is where I tried to paint a verbal picture of the fact that right from birth we are immersed in narratives which carry cultural identity and values. I used the example of stories I read to my grandchildren, that I read to my own children, and that they will probably read to their grandchildren one day. By brief example, Red riding hood conveys the message that there is evil out there, personified in wolves! We have to be both obedient and vigilant as the basis of wisdom. Narratives embed our cultural values.
So are narratives easy to identify?
You know, in the age of ubiquitous social media we are constantly surrounded by very powerful narratives. The themes of “state capture” and “monopoly white capital” and “downgrades” come to mind as dramatic memes and themes. Also, with the incredible expertise we have today in communication, different narratives can employ very powerful communication strategies, either to strengthen or undermine them.
And false news?
Indeed, we have seen the rise of blatantly false news, and what many consider to be pernicious counter- narrative news.
What’s that?
It’s when, in order to counter narrative you find inconvenient or destructive to your position you build “themes” into the story to discredit it. I also pointed out how the intensity of discourse today can create powerful action platforms – such as anything that has racial connotations, or as in many cases we have seen the attack on anything colonialist. I am suggesting that we see more extreme reactions today because of the power of narrative and the social media.
So you are suggesting that these various narratives can be toxic?
Very much so. Some are claiming that we have become an overly litigious society – but in reality as so many of our narratives have constitutional implications in our young democracy, there is a need to test these narratives. This is where evidence based law and quality investigative journalism becomes crucial. Also, think for example of the report of the then Public Protector on the question of state capture. The report called for a proper legal enquiry to be conducted. She indicated there was sufficient evidence to justify such a procedure.
But it looks increasingly unlikely that that will happen?
Sure, we are undergoing a crucial test of the seriousness with which political leadership takes the constitutional processes embedded in our constitution.
So narrative and the way we approach it plays a powerful role in public discourse and the way we view people and institutions?
That’s right, I can’t help thinking of a recent article by the political analyst, Steven Friedman, in which he points out the complexities that work out in the relationships between the different sectors of society. Colluding narratives between business and government, for example, make for some very interesting “accommodations”.
What do you mean?
Do you remember the so called “Battle of Seattle?” Civil society ganged up in an extremely powerful way to confront the manner in which big government and big capital promoted rampant capitalistic practices which ignored the impact on people and planet. In many ways it marked a very significant moment in distinguishing between the agendas of big business and big government in the promotion of monopolistic, anti-environment and the commodification of people and services.
So are you suggesting we need to promote a vigilant and active civil society?
Well, I guess so. Who was it who said that the cost of democracy is eternal vigilance? I can’t remember who, but we certainly need to endorse that view and develop and protect mechanisms that promote and implement vigilant processes. I guess that emphasises how essential our chapter 9 institutions are – you know, as described in our constitution.
What is causing the heightened conflicting narratives in our society?
I guess you mean the dominant narrative around “monopoly white capital” and “state capture”?
That’s it. How do we approach this?
Well firstly, systems thinking pressures us to look below the surface. These narratives haven’t evolved in a vacuum. There are many others who can far more professionally and eloquently “deconstruct” our political narrative. One issue is the current practices in leadership, the constitution, and who is benefiting from the resources of the state. However, from another perspective, 23 years after democracy there are deep social divisions. People have built “boundaries” around wealth and poverty cultures, some people have access to much better health services than others, we have developed comfort zones and hackneyed arguments. Our students are militant but in a sense looking for direction, our communities are taking to the streets.
You made mention of religious narratives as well?
Indeed I did. We have seen the rise of religious leaders from Bishop Tutu to the evangelist Angus Buchan taking a stand. In fact, Angus has taken the view that we need a focus on national repentance and prayer. Bishop Makgoba is calling for a new CODESSA focusing on social and economic justice.
I believe you made some suggestions for dialogue.
Indeed, at the risk of being “preachy” I did suggest some ideas, based on looking at deeply rooted ideas rather than “band aid” solutions.
Such as?
Well, I suggested that our education practices need to really promote an awareness of what I call “the critical self”. We need to build in a healthy sense of personal identity with a distinct understanding of the power of the individual, both for good and bad, and cast this sense of identity in the context of a critical awareness of “the other”. This implies an emphasis on judgement and the development of the moral core. I remember way back when I was an enthusiastic theology under- graduate being introduced to Martin Buber’s concept of “I and Thou”, of recognising and respecting the other as being as fully human and me and worthy of my respect. From my appreciation of African culture the notion of Ubuntu comes to mind.
Is it just about the individual?
No, this sense of identity needs to become the culture of our organisations. To counter the ultra-efficiency models which commodify services, we need to foster care as a core organisational value. I know this concept is terribly disruptive to many of our organisation models and practices but without caring we very quickly lessen our humanity.
So the individual and the organisation?
Well, yes, and thirdly, it’s about the community. I suggest that building truly local economies will go a long way to solving many of our societal problems – but let’s leave exploring this for another conversation on another day!
And, what will help us to achieve these rather idealistic goals?
I suggest we focus conversations around four core themes?
Being?
I suggest these themes as questions I want to leave with you for now.
They are
You’ve got me intrigued!
I hope so!
OK, how did you get the audience to participate in the breakfast session?
Firstly, we make the assumption that all are leaders in their own right and set of circumstances and that is where their interest and reference point is as they participate. Anyway, we gave them two core questions and they got talking at their tables.
And?
Well, it’s always amazing to see how people want to engage and tell their stories – and some amazing stories of community engagement and caring practices emerge.
How did you get feedback?
Well, Shamim used a dialogical process we use to take conversations deeper. It involves the clustering of ideas and then the refining of the dialogue around them. We took some photos and short clips which you will be able to see on the web-site.
And then?
We used another systems thinking technique to consider the way the various themes that emerged influence each other.
What were the themes?
They were
Communication - the need to engage in conversations and make our voices heard even in uncomfortable spaces
Social inequality – how we need to find ways to find each other and stop playing “the hole is in your side of the boat” game.
Change Management – we need to develop situations and skills to really engage with personal, organisational and community leadership challenges
Teaching – the need to really focus on the processes of learning and teaching, from the home and kinder-garden upwards to adults.
Mediation – knowing how to intervene when things are coming adrift
Empowerment – learning how to promote an enterprise rather than an entitlement culture
So where to from here?
We always make it clear that the purpose of joining in our “Get South Africa Talking” is firstly, to get people in conversation with other engaged and concerned citizens who they would probably never meet in the normal course of events. Secondly, we encourage participants to challenge their own thinking and the thinking of those they normally engage with through insights they gain from their participation. The above themes are a good starting point.
So do you think the breakfast was a success?
The proof is in the pudding. It was a success if it influenced meaningful engagement as I’ve suggested above!
A dialogue on the day
Hi Stan, I believe you were the provocateur of the day?
Correct, we were focusing on the leadership crisis facing our country and particular the degree of social agitation so evident at present.
How did you approach the topic?
Well, as you are aware, the Leadership Dialogue places emphasis on systemic issues and the role that our mental models play out in our conversation and beliefs. The interplay of mental models as we engage with the world gives rise to narratives which are an essential part of our construction of meaning and engagement in the world. In fact, we speak of agency as the way our beliefs are structured in our social interactions. Yes, so understanding the prevailing narratives and finding ways of engaging with them becomes our main work as members of the Leadership Dialogue.
Systemic Issues?
You know, one of the early leaders in the systems thinking movement make the rather startling assertion that systems thinking begins when we are first able to view the world from the perspective of someone else. In this way we are able to appreciate the big picture and are able to see something of the competing views.
You place emphasis on this word, “dialogue”. Do you mean conversation?
That’s part of it. Our mental models are our symbolic interpretation of the world. These ideas feed into our stereotypes. We often get very caught up in “discourses”, which is different to dialogue.
How so?
Well discourses are the conversations we get locked into, the rhetoric which we fall into and around which we construct so much of our sense of identity. Dialogue is the process of learning to step outside of our discourses, suspending judgement, and really trying to understand the world from the point of view of others.
That’s not easy!
Agreed! We are so caught up in our own belief systems and the stories we make up and contribute to in order to validate our sense of identity and belonging.
The stories we make up?
Yes, the narratives we participate in. This is where I tried to paint a verbal picture of the fact that right from birth we are immersed in narratives which carry cultural identity and values. I used the example of stories I read to my grandchildren, that I read to my own children, and that they will probably read to their grandchildren one day. By brief example, Red riding hood conveys the message that there is evil out there, personified in wolves! We have to be both obedient and vigilant as the basis of wisdom. Narratives embed our cultural values.
So are narratives easy to identify?
You know, in the age of ubiquitous social media we are constantly surrounded by very powerful narratives. The themes of “state capture” and “monopoly white capital” and “downgrades” come to mind as dramatic memes and themes. Also, with the incredible expertise we have today in communication, different narratives can employ very powerful communication strategies, either to strengthen or undermine them.
And false news?
Indeed, we have seen the rise of blatantly false news, and what many consider to be pernicious counter- narrative news.
What’s that?
It’s when, in order to counter narrative you find inconvenient or destructive to your position you build “themes” into the story to discredit it. I also pointed out how the intensity of discourse today can create powerful action platforms – such as anything that has racial connotations, or as in many cases we have seen the attack on anything colonialist. I am suggesting that we see more extreme reactions today because of the power of narrative and the social media.
So you are suggesting that these various narratives can be toxic?
Very much so. Some are claiming that we have become an overly litigious society – but in reality as so many of our narratives have constitutional implications in our young democracy, there is a need to test these narratives. This is where evidence based law and quality investigative journalism becomes crucial. Also, think for example of the report of the then Public Protector on the question of state capture. The report called for a proper legal enquiry to be conducted. She indicated there was sufficient evidence to justify such a procedure.
But it looks increasingly unlikely that that will happen?
Sure, we are undergoing a crucial test of the seriousness with which political leadership takes the constitutional processes embedded in our constitution.
So narrative and the way we approach it plays a powerful role in public discourse and the way we view people and institutions?
That’s right, I can’t help thinking of a recent article by the political analyst, Steven Friedman, in which he points out the complexities that work out in the relationships between the different sectors of society. Colluding narratives between business and government, for example, make for some very interesting “accommodations”.
What do you mean?
Do you remember the so called “Battle of Seattle?” Civil society ganged up in an extremely powerful way to confront the manner in which big government and big capital promoted rampant capitalistic practices which ignored the impact on people and planet. In many ways it marked a very significant moment in distinguishing between the agendas of big business and big government in the promotion of monopolistic, anti-environment and the commodification of people and services.
So are you suggesting we need to promote a vigilant and active civil society?
Well, I guess so. Who was it who said that the cost of democracy is eternal vigilance? I can’t remember who, but we certainly need to endorse that view and develop and protect mechanisms that promote and implement vigilant processes. I guess that emphasises how essential our chapter 9 institutions are – you know, as described in our constitution.
What is causing the heightened conflicting narratives in our society?
I guess you mean the dominant narrative around “monopoly white capital” and “state capture”?
That’s it. How do we approach this?
Well firstly, systems thinking pressures us to look below the surface. These narratives haven’t evolved in a vacuum. There are many others who can far more professionally and eloquently “deconstruct” our political narrative. One issue is the current practices in leadership, the constitution, and who is benefiting from the resources of the state. However, from another perspective, 23 years after democracy there are deep social divisions. People have built “boundaries” around wealth and poverty cultures, some people have access to much better health services than others, we have developed comfort zones and hackneyed arguments. Our students are militant but in a sense looking for direction, our communities are taking to the streets.
You made mention of religious narratives as well?
Indeed I did. We have seen the rise of religious leaders from Bishop Tutu to the evangelist Angus Buchan taking a stand. In fact, Angus has taken the view that we need a focus on national repentance and prayer. Bishop Makgoba is calling for a new CODESSA focusing on social and economic justice.
I believe you made some suggestions for dialogue.
Indeed, at the risk of being “preachy” I did suggest some ideas, based on looking at deeply rooted ideas rather than “band aid” solutions.
Such as?
Well, I suggested that our education practices need to really promote an awareness of what I call “the critical self”. We need to build in a healthy sense of personal identity with a distinct understanding of the power of the individual, both for good and bad, and cast this sense of identity in the context of a critical awareness of “the other”. This implies an emphasis on judgement and the development of the moral core. I remember way back when I was an enthusiastic theology under- graduate being introduced to Martin Buber’s concept of “I and Thou”, of recognising and respecting the other as being as fully human and me and worthy of my respect. From my appreciation of African culture the notion of Ubuntu comes to mind.
Is it just about the individual?
No, this sense of identity needs to become the culture of our organisations. To counter the ultra-efficiency models which commodify services, we need to foster care as a core organisational value. I know this concept is terribly disruptive to many of our organisation models and practices but without caring we very quickly lessen our humanity.
So the individual and the organisation?
Well, yes, and thirdly, it’s about the community. I suggest that building truly local economies will go a long way to solving many of our societal problems – but let’s leave exploring this for another conversation on another day!
And, what will help us to achieve these rather idealistic goals?
I suggest we focus conversations around four core themes?
Being?
I suggest these themes as questions I want to leave with you for now.
They are
- What is holistic well-being and how can we achieve it?
- How can we make justice inclusive?
- How can we build an enterprise culture? And,
- What is satisfied sufficiency?
You’ve got me intrigued!
I hope so!
OK, how did you get the audience to participate in the breakfast session?
Firstly, we make the assumption that all are leaders in their own right and set of circumstances and that is where their interest and reference point is as they participate. Anyway, we gave them two core questions and they got talking at their tables.
And?
Well, it’s always amazing to see how people want to engage and tell their stories – and some amazing stories of community engagement and caring practices emerge.
How did you get feedback?
Well, Shamim used a dialogical process we use to take conversations deeper. It involves the clustering of ideas and then the refining of the dialogue around them. We took some photos and short clips which you will be able to see on the web-site.
And then?
We used another systems thinking technique to consider the way the various themes that emerged influence each other.
What were the themes?
They were
Communication - the need to engage in conversations and make our voices heard even in uncomfortable spaces
Social inequality – how we need to find ways to find each other and stop playing “the hole is in your side of the boat” game.
Change Management – we need to develop situations and skills to really engage with personal, organisational and community leadership challenges
Teaching – the need to really focus on the processes of learning and teaching, from the home and kinder-garden upwards to adults.
Mediation – knowing how to intervene when things are coming adrift
Empowerment – learning how to promote an enterprise rather than an entitlement culture
So where to from here?
We always make it clear that the purpose of joining in our “Get South Africa Talking” is firstly, to get people in conversation with other engaged and concerned citizens who they would probably never meet in the normal course of events. Secondly, we encourage participants to challenge their own thinking and the thinking of those they normally engage with through insights they gain from their participation. The above themes are a good starting point.
So do you think the breakfast was a success?
The proof is in the pudding. It was a success if it influenced meaningful engagement as I’ve suggested above!