Transformational shifts
Transformational shifts
The approach described in this article by UNDP has some similarities with our thinking at Fondation Botnar. We also acknowledge complexity and the need for a systems lens to tackle some of the pressing problems of our time. We also work with a statement of intent (we call it strategic intent) that provides a sense of direction rather than an end point in the form of an objective.
At the same time, I tripped over the formulation of transformational shifts that the UNDP programme is using to describe what kind of change it is aiming for. And the shifts are described quite explicitly. From weak institutions to proactive institutions with strengthened capacities, for example, or from mounting tension and weak trust to an inclusive, equitable and peaceful society.
These statements seem so broad that one cannot really say anything against them. However, my bigger problem with this is that I do not believe we can actually clearly describe how a situation after a transformational shift could possibly look like. The reason for this is that we will change quite fundamentally ourselves and with this change also what we would consider to be good or better will shift. So if we describe a situation that is seen as better vis-a-vis our current standards and values, we might miss a large part of what is indeed possible but outside of what we can even imagine now.
This is from a LinkedIn post by Joss Colchester I have seen recently talking about a similar idea:
What is a paradigm and why is it so important a concept in the context of systems innovation? Well, let us use this graphic to illustrate systems change ...
There are two overall ways to contextualize what we see in this graphic - we can see it as an old woman or as a young lady. Each is a paradigm, an overarching way of organizing a system - the context.
Some important things to consider here...
Firstly, as we changed our view from one way to another, nothing in the picture changed, and none of the parts changed, but the overall organization for us did, and our way of looking at and relating to the image did very much. Thus we can say systems change is about change in context and the organization of the parts and not so much about change in the parts.
Secondly, when we frame the picture in one way or the other, we lose sight of the other way of framing it. We can say it is very difficult to see outside of our paradigm because that is all we have to contextualize things - holding two paradigms is very difficult and intellectually demanding.
Thirdly, the change from one paradigm to another is not incremental, we do not change one part, then another, we instead "flip" from one way of perceiving to another, which happens all at once, it is not a linear progression.
Finally, when the second system of organisation - paradigm - is revealed to us, it is surprising and somewhat shocking that the existing paradigm was not the only one.
I don't necessarily agree with all that Joss writes here (e.g. that "we can say systems change is about change in context and the organization of the parts and not so much about change in the parts"), but I really enjoyed the comments Louis Klein made as a reaction to the post. Here an excerpt of Louis' comment:
As my friend Adbelsalam Benhamza once said characterising the beautiful transformation he witnessed in his community: “The houses are the same, the streets are the same, there are still the same people, nothing has changed and everything has changed.” We may call it, going to second-order cybernetics, an epistemological transformation or, as more popular these days, a mind and heart shift. However, what we are looking at is a meta-morphic transformation, a transformation beyond the form, a transformation that manifests in our perception, in our experiences and in our understanding.
Yet, change does not happen merely by going through this transformation of perception of context (it's not the actual context that shifts, or the organisation of the system as Joss implies, but we reconstruct our mental arrangements that represent what we perceive as reality - the transforms, as G. Bateson called them).
To quote Louis again:
The experience of multiple paradigm shifts and an ecology of paradigms may invite us to reflect what these paradigms facilitate. We see the world differently, we witness a meta-morphic transformation, however, do we witness the manifestation of the world we like to live in? Do we witness a world as an expression of our humanity? The paradigm shift per se may facilitate many things – the good, the bad, and the ugly. If we stay in the amazement, we may drift into the eddy of post-modern arbitrariness and everything goes.
The experience of meta-morphic transformation, however, serves as an invitation to co-reflect the lived experience and grow a shared understanding of the very meta-morphic transformation asking critically to what extent the witnessed transformation is an expression of our humanity. We may learn to see with different eyes, to widen our gaze and to realise in meta-morphic transformation the essentiality and existentiality of love. Recognising paradigm shifts is just the beginning.
So how could we, literally without being able to see, define how a 'better' situation after the transformation will look like? We can merely describe the transformation on the surface, the re-arrangements of the chairs on deck. Yet is that really a transformation?
But we don't need to navigate into a transformation blindly. Indeed, what Louis describes in his response to Joss' post is critical. The shift in perception, the meta-morphic transformation as Louis calls it, is a mere first step, out of which grow new possibilities of being and acting. "Recognising paradigm shifts is just the beginning."
How do we do that? In my experience, what helps me is to try to look for things that are different, that seemingly don't make sense. I also found that things that evoke annoyance in me have a strong potential to allow me to question the way I see the world. I try to search for patterns that have a contrasting tone, texture, aesthetic. Those that don’t seem to recreate the conditions that create the patterns we like to see less of, but that seem to find another way of doing things, one that might feel absurd on first sight. They seem to root in new ways of thinking and being. Such patterns help me to question my perception of things, ask whether what I thought was impossible is not as impossible as I thought. If strong enough, these patterns can indeed lead to a transformation, and even if only in my perception of the world. I can then amplify this by sharing it, by engaging with that way of being and make others question what they believe is the edge of their imagination.
The Paper Museum
From a video of Bayo Akomolafe talking about Purpose (5 minutes on YouTube):
The questions I've been asking about purpose have more to do with how is the world undoing me, you know, how is the sacred more than just a rival at what should be discovered; how's the sacred, you know, an invitation to become lost.
So purpose for me feels like an arena where we fertilise our bodies and compost ourselves in order to find our way or find ourselves in new ways.
My elders would say in order to find your way you must become lost, generously lost. So I feel this lostness is not a negative thing. It's how we stumble upon exquisite new worlds, new ways of speaking, new ways of being, because we could become so found that we're incarcerated in our maps.
So the idea of purpose for me is the invitation to stray away from the algorithms, you know, the formulas we're used to in order to encounter beings that exceed us.
Why have I added this to my paper museum? I think it nicely links to the post above about paradigm shifts. If we see purpose as something definable that we can strive for, we will get stuck in our current paradigm - "incarcerated in our maps" as Bayo calls it. But if we allow ourselves to get lost, something completely new might emerge - a new self that perceives different possibilities.