SYSTEMIC GOVERNANCE FROM MODE 1 TO MODE 2 CONSCIOUSNESS
5.3 THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF GOVERNANCE
5.3.1 Communication and Participation for Governance
The nature of knowledge (and particularly knowledge management) needs to be reconceptualized to enable open communication and systemic, participatory decision-making and governance. The discussion addresses the nature of knowledge and governance and the shift from compartmentalized closed approaches to management (mode 1) to systemic open approaches (mode 2) to governance.
Experiential learning through participatory action research with the most marginalized in society and listening to significant others (whose praxis is systemic and open) is the basis for developing the grounded theory. My learning is also from my relationship with nature and animals who although they do not directly shape history (Engles, in Fuchs, 2003: 153) they are part of it and contribute to it through their pain and suffering on our behalf (Singer, 2002). Whilst passion is in fashion and used in the individualistic sense of “I am passionate about. . .” Compassion for the other and emotion is less fashionable, as world events testify. Compassion for the other and emotion has never been considered either relevant or desirable to a ratio- nal, scientific thinker. I argue that compassion is essential for a sustainable future.
The assumption that underpins this work is that good governance re- quires asking good questions and providing the conditions – not merely to allow – but to foster good conversations and the asking of good questions.
Providing space for diversity and for convergence is the challenge of good governance based on networks and alliances that create a weblike politics of emergence, rather than a block versus block entrenched political approach as per Deleuze and Guttari (Buchanan and Colebrook, 2000).
Communication is the basis of life. Good communication by Homo Sapi- ens Sapiens is essential for care taking and governance across self-other and
8 Churchman cites the work of Anaxagoras as a basis for this idea and relates how biology students discover the analogy of nucleus and electrons and energy within a cell and reflect that this is the systemic pattern of the universe.
9 “Hence since they share nothing, then the ‘null class’ is included in every class. The same logical process occurs at the other end of the spectrum of classes, the universal class of all classes. To keep the rules exceptionless, every class must be included in the universal class. But if we allow a slight shift in wording, the language becomes mystical and perhaps Zen-like.
134 Chapter 5 the environment. Good communication is based on humility based on in- cluding the ideas of many and drawing on diversity, in order to solve prob- lems and reduce risk.
When defining and addressing social and environmental problems we need to use a participatory design processes. Scaling up participation within organizations and across organisations at the local, national and interna- tional level, whether they are public or private or voluntary organizations is the basis for good design for governance that supports democracy. To draw on Gaventa’s (2001) distinction, democracy is more than just voting, it is about being “makers and shapers” of one’s own (and wider) community, not merely “users” of services or “choosers” of representatives. Systemic Governance requires that decisions should be applied at the level at which they are made (Edgar, 2001) and that the requisite variety of decision mak- ers are involved in making decisions about the future, to apply Ashby’s Law (Ashby, in Lewis and Stewart, 2003). Local areas of specialisation can be developed drawing on the expertise or personal knowledge of the people who have direct experience.
Communication and diverse social movements span the local and the global, in response to diverse social, economic and environmental concerns.
Accountability for a sustainable future needs to consider not merely the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) in accounting but also the implications of diverse social, political, economic and environmental accountability fac- tors (Gallhofer and Chew, 2000) when defining issues and their implications locally, nationally and internationally. If the USA had considered the impli- cations of the slaughter of villagers in Samar their 1899 war (not merely against the Spanish but) against the colonised people of the Philippines, they would have a greater sense of why the closing of the American bases in 1992 in the Philippines was a popular event (Griggers, in Buchanan and Colebrook, 2000) and the ambivalence that many continue to have towards the renewed American presence to address the terrorist threat of the Mus- lim areas such as Mindanao who have always resisted the Christianity of the invaders – Spanish or American. If the USA had had a more systemic approach to governance and considered the implications of giving mostly military aid to the Kymar Republic – in Cambodia (Sophea Eate, 2003) they would have perhaps been mindful of the possibility that they had helped to empower a force to create the conditions for the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime in the 1970’s. If the CIA had not armed the Taliban against the Russians in the 1980s would the kind of fundamentalism that America ab- hors been less of a problem, as defined by Ackoff, and Strumpfer (2003)? If the Iraq government had not been armed by the CIA to address the threats from Iran and the monster Saddam Hussein created (Pilger, 2002) would the world be in its current state of fear and hatred post the war in Iraq? Perhaps
the drawing of offensive cartoon in a Danish newspaper would not have eventuated in Europe if more respect for cultural diversity was evident.10If the weak states had been treated as ends in themselves and not a means to an end to gain a colonial foothold or to fight a proxy war (Chomsky, 1993) between ideologies of capitalism versus Russian or Chinese communism perhaps the war on terror would not have come about, because respect for diversity and the wide range of cross cutting alliances would have produced a peaceful world (Habermas and Derrida (2001). Ironically the very struc- ture of Iraq which comprises Kurds and Shitites and Sunni Muslims was a creation of Western democracy after World War 1. Social engineering has indeed created its own monster. If we are able to own ‘the enemy within’, we are more likely to be prepared to engage in dialogue to find a solution that is workable from the point of view of the stakeholders who are at the re- ceiving end of the decision, hence the value of C. West Churchman’s Design of Inquiring Systems.
The challenge for good communication is to realize that all life can be un- derstood in terms of the communication metaphor. Bausch (2001) describes the most basic connections, namely the sign that communicates across in- organic molecules and organic molecules that make up life. The genetic codes, intra and inter cellular communication are essentially the basis of all organic life forms. Bausch (2001) talks of “knowledge for” life and “knowl- edge about” life and experiences. He explains that knowledge for is based on signs and it underpins knowledge about life. The challenge for good sys- temic governance is ontological and epistemological. It is ontological in so far as it is essential to understand that the nature of reality is such that working with wholes, not parts is essential. Once the nature of reality is un- derstood it is necessary to develop organizational structures in the public, private and non-government sectors that will enable better communication with knowledge discourses and enable flexible and proactive approaches.
Knowledge management could easily become a cynical attempt to manip- ulate knowledge – both the knowledge for life (genetic codes) and knowl- edge about (based on meanings and symbols). Epistemologically the links across knowledge of individuals, groups at the local, national and interna- tional level need to be recognized. But the contextual nature of knowledge
10 Huge Turnout for Protest. Cape Times, Friday, February 10, 2006. Over 20 000 Muslims joined a city march in Cape Town, South Africa “Mbeki said one of the greatest achieve- ments was ‘the advance we have made towards building the united but diverse society that is so fundamental to our future’. He quoted with approval an editorial in London’s Independent that said there was no merit in causing ‘gratuitous offence’ and appealed for ‘mutual respect’ in matter of debate and disagreement. . .‘We are in deep distress at what has proved to be offensive to our brothers and sisters of Muslim faith’ {Anglican Archbishop Desman} Tutu said”.
136 Chapter 5 is all-important for meaning and relevance. Ethical decisions need to be in- formed by the ideal that human beings and sentient beings are ends in them- selves and need to be treated with respect and compassion.
Systemic governance has as much relevance for peace studies as it has for development and business strategies. The world of policy making and gov- ernance is one that requires people to construct solutions by communicating with people who have different ideas and definitions of problems by virtue of the society in which they have grown up, their culture, whether they have experienced life in a rural or urban context, their gender, level of education, level of income, whether or not they have a physical or mental/emotional dis-ability to mention just some of the more obvious factors that influence the way people think about the world.
Religion is no longer a private matter as it was in the modernist era. Re- ligion and religious language appears to be taking center stage once again.
Private religions shape policy. The Christianity of George Bush and the Is- lamic ideas of fundamentalist politicians have moved into the public arena once again. As a reaction to the juxtaposition of many ideas in space and time, confused people whose identity is challenged make sense of complex- ity by resorting to fundamentalist religious paradigms. Postmodernity has not led to the celebration of diversity in so far as exploring different kinds of food, clothing and art forms. Religious myths are comforting and they pro- vide identity markers that cannot be disrupted by the market or by simplistic, compartmentalized thinking.
Globalization paradoxically spells out the freedom of the market in the interests of powerful classes and G8 nations (Humphrey, 2003: 31-44) and the closure of national identity/group alliances, in reaction to the fear of markets or in order to bolster advantage. The open markets provide open opportunities for some people to move capital and products and to travel, in order to market their interests and ideas. An open global era for some is experienced by others quite differently. Freedom of movement is not pos- sible for those without cultural capital or income. The chapters that follow addresses governance, leadership and co-creation of knowledge for problem solving and testing out ideas by people with lived experience, not just by the powerful so-called experts. This is both a pragmatic and idealistic goal.
Creativity and diversity is vital for productivity but fear of difference has been magnified historically through wars, unequal development culminat- ing in September 11 2002 and the war on terror. We live in a world where there are many knowledge narratives and in a globalizing world multiple viewpoints are expressed and co-exist.
The invasion of Iraq by the US, Britain and Australia was justified as
“a war against evil”. Fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have in common a belief that the framework of their own religion is right
and that the framework of others is wrong. Competitive and hostile language underlines the boundaries between the frameworks. Interestingly the libera- tive potential of both Islam and Christianity is based on an all-knowing and compassionate God. God is regarded as truth or goodness and if logically we argue that the closest we can get to truth and goodness is through striving to be all knowing and compassionate, then we are likely to be on the right track – a sustainable, harmonious track.
West Churchman (1979) has argued that open systems and thus openness to ideas is essential if we are to be better thinkers and better problem solvers.
The world is a complex place. Diversity expressed through making different choices as to how we meet our basic needs as human beings adds richness and interest. We can learn from one another’s successes and failures. This is useful economically and socially. In the past when societies were more isolated from one another the domains of knowledge were separated by ge- ographical space and time. Now conceptual ideas from different places are juxtaposed within the media at the same time. Diversity and complexity in the past was managed by barriers. Globalization has removed some of these and imposed others. The values underpinning the barriers need to be explored. Boundaries need to be worked with, rather than regarded as the limits within which we have to think and work.
Working with the knowledge narratives or discourses of the marginalized provides grounded theory on social inclusion for better governance. Exam- ples of my own experience of PAR form the basis for discussing governance as a form of knowledge management.
The concepts “knowledge” and “knowledge management” are rooted in the way we understand the world (ontological, deontological and epistemo- logical assumptions about the world) and the way we undertake research and what is considered to be legitimate research
Grand narratives that try to encompass all elements undermine rich, de- tailed narratives that preserve cultural identity. In striving for good gover- nance we need to walk the tightrope and maintain a balance between main- taining the detailed, rich subjective narrative (and the right to it) and a grand overview that explains it and somehow diminishes the vitality of the knowl- edge as lived experience. Nevertheless the rich detailed and tacit knowledge (as life) needs to be open and mindful to the negative potential as well as the positive potential within any framework. Unfolding and sweeping in can produce multilayered knowledge narratives that are mutually enriched, so that the learnings can be teased out and co-creations can emerge. In order to work with knowledge we need to have an open systemic approach. This is the main thesis.
138 Chapter 5 The lives of ordinary innovative thinkers (members of the public) are joined with the ideas of graduate students and some of the academic shapers of the field in a complementary narrative.
In the new Australian Institute of Management publication:11“The heart and soul of leadership” it was stressed that creativity and problem solving through better open communication is a priority. How to do this is the chal- lenge. Participatory action research provides a systemic process for address- ing these challenges. It is a constructivist approach based on experiential learning that draws on the lived experiences of all the participants who are co-researchers exploring ways to make sense of a particular challenge.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) involves working with participants from the conceptualization to the implementation and evaluation stage of development research. It involves a) learning by doing; and b) the ongoing feedback of ideas amongst the participants. The process of revising both ideas and practice on the basis of participation is ongoing and integral to PAR. It is a process that involves all stakeholders as participants at all stages of the research. It is not a straight-line approach to research and implemen- tation; instead it is a spiral approach.
By thinking creatively we can address problems in different ways. If we believe that there is more than one answer to a problem, we will allow our- selves to think beyond the limitations that we have set ourselves. “It is vi- tal that development be a process for securing improvements, rather than merely an outcome.”12 Planning for development requires a process of in- cluding representatives of all interest groups. In this way an overview of different perspectives held by different stakeholders can be developed, in order to address diversity and to enhance creative decision making and prob- lem solving, based on iterative dialogue with a range of interest groups in the public, private and volunteer sectors. This sort of approach is likely to be more productive in terms of governance than an approach that excludes lived experiences and insights or tacit knowledge of the participants. The process of action research is essentially democratic and is based on rich discussion and co-creation of meaning. The researcher as expert does not own leader- ship of the process, but instead, leadership is distributed across the research participants.