SYSTEMIC GOVERNCANCE FOR PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND
1.4 THE PRAXIS OF SYSTEMIC, SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE
The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. When people commu- nicate and engage in meaningful dialogue shared meaning is co-created.
This is what is meant by emergence. When people communicate respect- fully and achieve resonance a basis for good governance and international relations is formed. The opposite is also the case. The basis of participation is respect and sincerity. To achieve mindfulness West Churchman suggests thinking exercises of ‘unfolding’ meanings and ‘sweeping in’ social, polit- ical, economic and environmental ideas (1979a, b, 1982). Systemic Gov- ernance, however advocates a) dialogue, b) thinking and c) learning from experiences of those who are to be at the receiving end of the policy deci- sions. It is also similar to the idea of the “eternal return” (from Delueze, in Bogue, 1989) that generates the dynamic of thesis-antithesis and synthesis and the appreciation of communication spirals, whilst the notion of “struc- tural differentiation” is an ideal from physics that makes the same point about moving equilibriums. So physics, religion and art show convergence.
Diversity is vital as ‘the jump lead’ of creativity, because it is part of the spiral and the rhythm of life, death and rebirth of ideas.
Subsidiarity needs to be supported by facilitation processes to ensure that it is accountable to local stakeholders and that it can allow for or enable as much diversity as possible; that is to the extent that it does not undermine the freedom of others.
“Transnational democratization networks thus promote more than one way of understanding democracy and in some cases external actors offer competing versions of what democracy should be. But how successful non-state transna- tional networks are depends in large measure on the reception of ideas about cit- izenship and the strength of their local partners on the ground.” (Grugel, 1999:
21)
It is argued that Systemic Governance is “stitching together” a “patch- work” of positions and realizing the value of different ideas (Edgar, 2001).
1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 27
Table 1.2. Mechanistic versus Systemic Governance
Mechanistic versus Systemic
Market dictates, social capital is useful for building economic capital
Multiple factors social, economic and environmental wellbeing
Commodification of knowledge and re- lationships
Tacit knowledge valued by groups who choose to work together
Values of individuals and interest groups related to quality of life
Objective Multiple, valued representations
Theory and methods
Economic capital Social, economic and environmental
capital, the triple bottom line revised to include spiritual wellbeing
Expert manager, expert professional working according to terms of reference of departments and organizations
Transdisciplinary knowledge workers, generic managers able to be mindful of their own core areas but able to work with knowledge rather than within the boundaries of knowledge
Consumer/customer/client/ Citizens and strangers
It addresses fixed and fluid identity and politics. The argument is summa- rized below:
The shift is from a) hubris paradigms, based on assumed professional expertise, and divisions across self-other and the environment; to b) appre- ciation of the whole, through respectful and sincere communication. Ques- tions45 for addressing (molar) fixed and molecular (fluid) politics and iden- tity are posed:
• What norms do interest group members hold that allow for separate and shared identities?
• How do processes support bonds of association and friendship? Do these processes allow for openness or closure?
• Why are boundaries drawn in particular contexts?
• Who benefits from being included or excluded?
The basic questions need to be considered in iterative cycles as suggested by Ulrich (1984), Flood and Romm (1996). Norms, processes and bound- aries can have positive and negative implications for some stakeholders, de- pending on the context. I argue that there is space for both molar (fixed)
45 Cultural norms, bonds and porous boundaries (Elias and Lichterman, 2003) guide my reflection on the case studies that strive to achieve accountability.
Table1.3.SystemicGovernanceis“stitchingtogether”a“patchwork”ofpositionsandrealizingthevalueofdifferentideas(Edgar,2001) Molar–fixedidentity andpolitics.TransformationMolecular–openidentityandpolitics Focusisononepointof viewWorksthehyphensofselfandother BondsHowpeoplecommuni- cate–ProcessEmphasisonsharedlo- callanguageandcul- ture Respectfulcommunication. Participatorydemocracythatmodels communicationtohealthedivides
Socialmovementsusinglanguagethat isinclusive–useoftheInternetand accesstodigitalcommunication BoundariesWhypeopledrawlines –RationaleSelfdetermination. Achievementofrights
Willtocommunicatebasedonshared values. Understandingthatidealismoftriple ormultiplebottomlineaccounting andpragmatismofsustainabilityare one
Concernforsustainablefuturesde- finedintermsofmultiplesocial,cul- tural,political,economicandenviron- mentalfactors. NormsWhatpeoplearere- quiredtodowithina context
Culturalnormsthatad- dressgroupidentityPolicyandlegalenvironmentthatsup- portsparticipatorydemocracyLawsandpolicythatsupportsocial andenvironmentaljustice
1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 29 identity and politics and molecular (fluid) identity and politics (drawing on Deleuze and Guattari, in Bogue, 1984; Buchanan and Colebrook, 2000).
Molar and Molecular form a continuum for democracy and that the shift occurs for many reasons, sometimes when sufficient trust exists for trans- formation, but also when people realize that there is no other way. Transfor- mation is about context and appreciating many factors, not least of which are emotions and power.46
Case studies of participatory action research can help to support progress in social or environmental justice and to draw lessons from those working in different ways for their own self-determination or on behalf of others.
Democracy is addressed in terms of a) participatory process; b) democ- racy without borders (Grugel, 1999);47and c) social movements (McIntyre- Mills, 2000).
We can either think in categories or we can think in terms of continuums.
In a bid to address the question: “How do we understand the power and pathos of identity politics? (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000: 47)48 an attempt is made to use examples and vignettes to address categories.
Systemic governance needs to take into account the positives and neg- atives – unfolding values and ‘sweeping in’ the social, political, economic and environmental context achieved through communication that is mindful
46 In the social sciences the dialectic / or “unfolding” and “sweeping in” are the concepts that are closest to structural differentiation. The dialectic is vital for exploring paradoxes and contradictions in social life. Rules and boundaries need to be addressed and remade within context. The shift from molar to molecular identity is discussed in terms of exam- ples of transformational changes. Molar is a metaphor for the rooted, fixed, categorical identity politics. Debate and conflict is from a specific position and arguments have teeth, because they are identified with this position and standpoint that representation is fixed and politics is positional and rooted in being. Molecular is a metaphor for openness to change and for the ability to make and remake options in different configurations using different elements.
47 This means social involvement in a range of contexts that include local, national and international movements.
48 Drawing on Brubaker et al. (2004: 48) Categories are based on criteria and indicators that may be rigid or fuzzy depending on whether membership is through self identifi- cation socialization or imposed by the powerful. The degree of importance given to the physical and social characteristics varies contextually and is linked with practical rea- sons. According to Brubaker et al. (2004: 48): definitions are based on the following:
“Criteria and indicators of membership Transmission: manner in which membership is acquired Fixedness versus fluidity of membership, Degree and form of naturalization, i.e. Degree and form of appeal for natural grounding for community, Degree and form of embodiment; importance attributed to phenotypic and other visible markers. Impor- tance attributed to distinctive language, religions, customs and other elements of culture, Degree and nature of territorialization; importance of territorial organization and sym- bolism, Nature of claims, if any, to autonomy and self sufficiency.”
of contextual considerations. Organizations are increasingly interconnected these days as a result of communication systems that enable local and global interaction in markets. Mass communication is, however largely one-way locally and internationally. So if people are not part of the big corporate net- works in the public, private or third sectors they are more likely to be objects of media activity, not the subjects of the activity.
Why should people strive to trust other people, interest groups and in- stitutions? Perhaps the answer to this is that humanity and communication evolved from the ability to signal and to develop trusted responses on the probability of expected responses (Bausch, 2001, who cites the debates be- tween Luhman and Habermas). This expected response in turn developed into meanings amongst groups of people. These shared meanings provided the basis of communication and cultural maps (Bausch, 2001). Predictability and shared meaning is the basis of society.
But today, meanings are not widely shared and generalized trust (in the sense used by Fukuyama (1995) in institutions and government is at a low ebb today (Warren, 1999). The request made by Bishop Desmond Tutu (15th February 2004, ABC News) for Britain and America to apologize for dis- trusting the word of Iraqis on the existence of weapons of mass destruction and justifying war on the basis of distrust49 is a case in point. The break- down in dialogue was central in the Iraq case. France did ask for dialogue to continue and for the search for weapons to continue, before resorting to war.
Hans Blix, the weapons inspector had also stressed this, but some analysts also thought that Saddam Hussein could have tried to give the impression that he had weapons when he no longer had them, so as to intimidate the Kurds and the Americans. Other analysts have suggested that Hussein could have been duped by some of his scientists who were selling off materials to supplement their salaries. Many of these aspects need to be considered in any attempt to talk about the case.50
Regime change was considered desirable by, for example the Kurds, who were oppressed by the authoritarian Iraqi regime, empowered paradoxically by weaponry for widespread destruction, supplied by America to Iraq who was at that time a convenient bulwark against Iran (Chomsky, 2003; Pil- ger, 2002). The war in Iraq however had little to do with the social justice concerns of the oppressed Kurds.
The starting point of my argument is not merely the value of trust and the value of building social capital, because this is meaningless. Why should we trust others until they earn trust? Why are networks necessarily a good thing? Social networks can be in the interests of social justice or they can
49 Because their own intelligence agencies were unsure of the situation.
50 Weekend Australian, 28-29thFebruary 2004.
1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 31 be in the interest of specific interest groups who do not have the wider so- cial interests (Bourdieu, 1986) let alone environmental interests at heart.
This time the argument is not merely about creating cross sector partner- ships for so-called “third way” (Giddens, 1998) responses that mediate be- tween the extremes of capitalism and socialism and can veer towards neo- conservatism.51 It is about exploring ways to revitalize sustainable democ- racy. Participatory action research aims to earn trust52 through better com- munication and better praxis (thinking and practice) in practical projects that help to prefigure or try out new ways of doing things (transformation) on a small scale, in order to improve the quality of life, because it is in the interests of sustainable governance and international relations. Following Beck (1992, 1998) I argue that denying connections and shunting poverty and pollution elsewhere backfires, as spatial boundaries are artificial. Pol- icy makers and managers need to make better decisions based, according to Capra (2003) not on the “power to command”, but instead on a “firm basis for knowing and acting” (Skidmore and Harkin, 2003: 15).
Systemic thinking helps to explore conceptual and spatial boundaries that address social, cultural, political, economic and environmental considera- tions and where necessary make normative judgments based on a reading of the situation that supports emancipation, complementary theory, com- plementary methodology and a focus on social and environmental justice.
Examples help to understand critical, systemic approaches that require con- sidering the big and small picture, logical relationships, idealism, empirical data, dialectical relationships, contextual considerations. Political power dy- namics are central to our understanding.
The argument developed from many case studies addresses conceptual and contextual slippage and readings across embodied social actors, life chances, communication, social and environmental justice and governance.
More specifically it addresses the two central paradoxes: that trust is a risk for people who make themselves vulnerable to others (Warren, 1999). But without trust that is developed through respectful communication (in the sense used by Habermas, 1984), democracy is unsustainable.
Diversity is essential, but it also contains a threat, decisions have to be made to ensure that democratic norms prevail. The cultural value of cre- ativity and participatory democracy – irrespective of age, culture, language, religion gender, or any other socio-demographic or economic category (see
51 McDonald, C. and Marston, G., 2003, “Fixing the niche? Rhetorics of the community sector in the neo liberal welfare regime”, Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Public Policy, 27 August, VCOSS, pp. 3-10.
52 Skidmore, P. and Harkin, J., 2003, “Grown up trust: a scene setting paper for the Demos/Nationwide seminar series on trust”, Demos, Open Access, London.
Table 1.4. Values, emotions, identity and politics
Assumptions about Molar politics Molecular politics Emotion – positive Courage to stand up for
rights, based on “one truth”
or one position.
The humility of the bound- ary worker who appreciates the wider picture and is pre- pared to move from either or /binary oppositions to be more inclusive.
– negative The hubris of the boundary maker
Forgetting the value of di- versity and difference and adopting a non truth stance
Banathy, 2000) support sustainable social, economic and environmental fu- tures. The use of categories does not imply that they are used in any es- sentialist manner (Beck, 1998: 137). Being is a complex interaction of con- ceptual, biological, ecological and social/cultural variables and is not static.
Although identity can be rooted in categories, it can also be emergent if our thinking is able to be mindful of the fluidity of life.
Churchman (1982) discusses the implications of decisions that “cut off”
opportunities for thinking, research, policy making and practice. Derrida (2003) also looks at boundaries, communication and decision-making when he develops his arguments about democratic thinking. Openness to concepts and the boundaries that we perceive and to which we are blind is an impor- tant contribution, wherever one is situated in the debates on truth, represen- tation or intertextuality (Orr, 2003). It is also vital for accountable decision making and good science. Trust that goes beyond the immediate commu- nity of family and friends is often associated with higher levels of education and that this is conducive to operating democratically (National Economics, 2002; ABS Report, 2002; Warren, 1999). However generalized trust in gov- ernments in some democracies is much lower today (Jupp, 2003; Warren, 1999).
Despite cynicism post the Iraq war and the search for weapons of mass destruction, the questioning of authority by many citizens of West- ern democracies and their critical mindset is valuable for re-invigorating democracy and making it more participatory so that it takes into account the viewpoints of many stakeholders.53
53 The shift required for policy makers and managers is from thinking and practicing within boundaries that “cut off” options too soon and that do not allow for the dialogue that can create resonance by “unfolding” values and “sweeping in” many factors (in the sense used by West Churchman, 1982) to enable the appreciation of Gaia. Constructs of reality are diverse and that this is valuable for our survival.
1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 33 Derrida questions the notion of democracy as bounded tolerance. His concept of hospitality is wider and more systemic than tolerance.54
1.5 MOLAR AND MOLECULAR IDENTITIES AND