Changemaker Q&A

This episode of Changemaker Q&A is an exciting one- I’m finally ready to share my explanatory framework of empowerment from my doctoral research! After presenting the framework at an international conference (I’ll share the paper here when it’s published), I wanted to share the philosophy/theoretical underpinnings of the framework for anyone who is interested in how/why my research took me in this direction. It might seem like women’s empowerment is something that is well-researched, but since empowerment emerged in the development field in the 1970s, it has become somewhat of a buzzword, and we often assume that any efforts that promote gender equality will automatically empower women – but the two are fundamentally different.

Equality VS Empowerment

If we look at the 5th of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, SDG target 5.B explicitly aims to empower women through information technologies. But, if we look at the sole indicator offered by the SDG framework to measure women’s empowerment through technology, this is the indicator: the proportion of women to men that own a mobile phone.

The problem with this is that it focuses on outcomes, not processes. And this might work for something like women’s rights, or gender equality, because we measure these through changes – static difference.

As early as the 1990s, Indian women’s rights activist and scholar Srilatha Batliwala expressed concern about the growing popularity and generalisation of the term empowerment, warning that empowerment was in danger of losing its transformative edge.

She called for a more precise understanding of both power and empowerment, and the only way we can do this is to move the focus of empowerment beyond ways of doing or ways of knowing, to uncovering ways of being.

The Philosophy of Change

Vanessa Machado de Oliveira’s book Hospicing Modernity uses the analogy of an olive tree to illustrate the metaphysics of modernity, and the approaches we take when dealing with the problems of modernity.

The leaves of the tree represent methodological approaches, which focus on ways of doing. These are prescriptive, and they assume that the system isn’t operating as effectively as it could, so they engage with affected parties, proposing new solutions, and more effective methods of implementation.

The branches represent epistemological approaches, which focus on ways of knowing. These are more descriptive, and they take more contextual and historical analysis and prioritise centring the voices of those with lived experience of social injustices, aim to offer contextually and culturally appropriate solutions, through redistribution, redress, and reparation to ‘fix’ the system.

The visible trunk and invisible roots represent the ontological layer, which form the basis of the tree and influence the growth of the branches and the leaves. Ontological approaches consider the fundamental notions about reality, self, consciousness, time, space, and change. Frameworks here move beyond description or prescription and must hold space for and work with complexity. There is a shift in ontological approaches from fixing the system to unravelling deeper structures of being, recognising that ways of knowing (modernity) cannot address the problems it created, and we must be willing to explore beyond the known possibilities, and moving from action-oriented tendencies to engaging with viable yet unimagined horizons.

Most mainstream empowerment frameworks are methodological or epistemological – while we need to explore alternative ways of doing and knowing, these will lack any transformative potential, and they may inadvertently legitimise the systems of oppression, injustice, and inequality it seeks to challenge, by failing to consider what possibilities exist beyond an epistemology that emerges from and is restricted by modernity.

Through the lens of ontology, I developed an explanatory model of empowerment.

Power & the Ontology of Persons

Empowerment, at the most fundamental, ontological level is not indicative of an event or change, but the result of a change process, in which an agent (subject) experiences a qualitative or quantitative increase her transformative power.

Power at the most fundamental philosophical level is the potential for something to cause an effect; transformative power is the potential for someone to exercise agency and transform their social conditions.

We most commonly explore power in the form of power over– which is usually experienced through control or force, and I categorise this as negative power, because it means an agent has transformative power taken away from them, this loss of power that can make the a change process disempowering.

Sometime power expressed through other agents, institutions, or structures, and while these might constrain or enable what is possible for a woman, if it doesn’t causally affect her transformative power, then this is an unempowering change.

If an agent experiences some change and it leads to a qualitative or quantitative increase in her transformative power, this may be empowering.

Empowerment is fundamentally about power.

Moving deeper towards the roots of our olive tree and explore the ontology of a person, we find that there are four planes of reality in which humans exist:

1. Material transactions – the plane in which people relate to their natural/physical environment. We all exist here in this room physically.
2. Embodied personality – the psycho-social dimensions of an individual as a stratified person. We all exist through our personality, with unique values, beliefs, likes and dislikes, and ways of viewing the world.
3. Social structures – the structures and social institutions that agents engage with, their history, and how these may reproduce social ills.
4. Personal interactions – communication in any social interactions or relationship. How we engage with one another and are perceived differently by each person or group we interact with.

These different ontological planes of reality impact the way we experience or express transformative power:

An increase in transformative power on the plane of material transactions, it is power-for. Power-for, which is the power of possibilities – where something that once existed as an imaged alternative is now something that we have the capacity to materialise.

An increase in transformative power on the plane an individual’s stratified personality is power-within, which is the power of autonomy, which enables women to make decisions that align with their own subjective goals and desires.

An increase in transformative power on the plane of social-structures, is power-to – which is the freedom to do and be, which is all about using agency to speak, act, and shape their own life, and this freedom is constrained by external structural and cultural factors.

An increase in transformative power on the plane of social interactions is power-with, which is the cumulative power that builds from not only taking-action, but inter-action with others.

In a world in which modernity defines development as a linear process that values ‘forward’ progress and growth, we can move from focusing on static differences and incremental changes, to instead building the transformative power of women, and empowerment will emerge naturally from this process of transformative change.

This model speaks to the nature of transformative change itself. Power-for provides the logic for transformative change: the potential for change some possible alternative reality— must necessarily pre-exist any attempt to generate change. Transformative change also requires power-within so women can use their agency and choose to mobilise or materialise these possibilities. Of course change doesn’t just happen from desiring and dreaming, it requires women to take action towards their goals— power-to gives them the freedom to take intentional action. But no one exists in a bubble; it is power-with that is built through partnerships, collaborations, solidarity, relationships, or support with others that makes it possible for this cycle of transformative change to continue not only for her, but to scale to family/village/workplace and so on.

Listen to the full episode:

The framework doesn’t end here: what I have presented to you today is a framework for empowerment that sits at the ontological level of our olive tree – it is up to the rest of us to take this model and add the epistemological branches and methodological leaves.

In this thought-provoking episode, we unravel the profound connection between spirituality and science to challenge traditional notions of manifestation, stripping away the new-age veneer to explore its philosophical roots. We’re exploring the question: Can we manifest social change?

Before we dive in, let’s clear the air of any preconceived notions about manifestation. I want you to set aside the trendy, new-age spiritual approaches you might have encountered online and embrace a more philosophical perspective. Manifestation, in its essence, is about creating the right conditions to bring forth something that already exists as potential into our reality.

Now, the interplay between spirituality and science is a crucial aspect of this discussion. Spirituality and science are not adversaries; they complement each other. While science provides an epistemological approach to understanding reality, spirituality offers a way to make sense of aspects beyond scientific scrutiny.

We’ve moved from wisdom to knowledge, and knowledge to information, and that information is so impartial that it is creating incomplete human beings

Vandana Shiva

Vandana Shiva’s words echo this sentiment, highlighting how our modern society tends to prioritise objective knowledge over holistic or contextual understanding. We often reduce reality to our knowledge of it, forgetting that transitive knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is fallible and subject to correction.

To illustrate this point, think of gravity. Gravity exists intransitively, beyond our direct observation, but we can observe its effects—the apple falling from the tree. Scientific laws, such as Newton’s law of gravity, provide transitive knowledge, a way to make sense of these phenomena, but they remain fallible and subject to reinterpretation, as seen with Einstein’s theory of relativity.

In the context of social change, manifestation is not about positive thinking or new-age practices. Manifestation happens whether we do it intentionally or not. Reflecting on personal experiences, like getting into a PhD program, showcases how positive thinking and visionary practices contribute to the journey but aren’t the sole drivers. It’s about understanding that certain potentials exists intransitively, and our role is to create the necessary causal conditions to bring them into reality. It’s not about being a high-vibe individual or adhering to a one-size-fits-all formula; rather, it’s a nuanced process of creating the conditions—applying, meeting criteria, and proposing relevant projects—that allow potential to manifest in reality.

Now, let’s bring this understanding to the forefront of our work as social changemakers. Can we manifest social change intentionally? Absolutely. Our actions, whether investing ethically, engaging in activism, or starting initiatives, are all aimed at creating the conditions for positive change. We act because we believe that the change we envision exists in the intransitive dimension of reality as potential.

This definition of manifestation is intentionally broad, accommodating various spiritual and non-spiritual beliefs. Whether you believe in destiny, the will of a higher power, or the concept of karma, the idea remains the same: we are activating the potential that already exists to manifest positive change in our shared reality.

Listen to the full episode:

As we continue our journey as social changemakers, let’s embrace this holistic and nuanced understanding of manifestation. It’s not about magic or wishful thinking; it’s about recognising the potential for change and actively working to create the conditions that allow it to manifest. Together, let’s manifest a world of positive impact and lasting change.

In this episode of Changemaker Q&A, we tackle a question that was asked by Dess, an industrial hygienist who was unsure of how researchers tackle more ‘subjective’ phenomena; “how can you do a PhD on a topic soooo subjective… as an Industrial Hygienist have to read so many scientific articles from research and a lot are so inconclusive basically *use at your own risk, *needs more research, etc. can’t imagine research about a word like empowerment.” This is a common question I get asked as a social researcher, which opens the door to a broader discussion about the often overlooked philosophical foundations of research and the need to embrace both the subjective and objective aspects of knowledge, and avoid many of the dualisms we see in contemporary Western thinking.

Misconceptions about “Subjectivity”

Addressing Des’s concerns about inconclusive research, I highlight that inconclusivity often stems from methodological challenges rather than being inherently linked to subjectivity or objectivity. Methodological issues such as sample size, study design, and data analysis can compromise reliability and validity, leading to ambiguous results in both subjective and objective research.

What people tend to consider ‘subjective’ is probably better understood as being context-dependent. Dess mentioned ‘inconclusive’ results, this is probably more-so the challenge of the results only being applicable in a certain context, not being subjective ‘open to individual interpretations or experiences.’ Context dependency doesn’t diminish the validity of research findings.

We often think that ‘conclusive’ research can’t be open to re-interpretation or correction, but thats the very nature of knowledge is that it evolves as humanity does. That’s why it’s so important to have researchers that play different roles in the building of knowledge.

The Puzzle Analogy

There’s a quote that summarises the basis for so many of these misconceptions we have;

“We’ve moved from wisdom to knowledge, and now we’re moving from knowledge to information, and that information is so partial – that we’re creating incomplete human beings”

— Vandana Shiva

Ever since Descartes, Western thinkers have thought about the world in terms of differences and ‘split’ reality into dualisms; macro vs micro, theory vs practice, subjective vs objective. But these dualisms are a misinterpretation of the duality of reality. They aren’t opposing phenomena or ways of viewing the world, they are two sides of the same coin, and their existence is intrinsically connected to and dependent on the other. We must get past this need to create false dualisms about reality, and begin to understand things more holistically.

In the puzzle analogy, I propose that researchers play three distinct roles in building a more holistic body of knowledge about phenomena— focusing on individual puzzle pieces, putting pieces together to identify patterns and trends, and examining the entire puzzle. These roles allow for a nuanced understanding that transcends dualistic thinking and provides a more holistic view of how knowledge is constructed to provide a more robust understanding of reality.

There are lots of phenomena that individuals experience subjectively — psychology, finance/economics, politics, ethics, justice, history — yet while people have subjective views or experiences of these things, or behave in a way that is dependent on a certain context, we can still study them objectively.

Take health for example, where people have their own ideas about what health means to them, what they believe is healthy, and how they approach health— but we can still research health objectively. We can develop certain indicators, standards, and approaches to health based on objective analysis, while also considering the subjective experiences individuals may have. It’s possible to have both. We develop this well-rounded understanding of health by ensuring we have researchers that take this different approaches to their research, allowing us to build a comprehensive understanding of health.

The Iceberg Model

Drawing on systems thinking, the iceberg model as a heuristic tool that we can all use to navigate complex phenomena. The iceberg model offers as a practical tool for researchers and practitioners to approach their work with a holistic perspective, acknowledging the intricacies of reality.

We can’t reduce reality to the subjective/contextual/relative perspectives, nor should we reduce it to the objective/empirical facts that we can observe. We need to go deeper than that, and take a holistic view that includes all of these levels of the iceberg.

The visible tip of the iceberg represents empirical knowledge—observable events and experiences, including both subjective interpretations and measurable, objective data. This top layer offers a starting point for exploration.

Moving beneath the surface, the model delves into patterns and trends. Here, changemakers can identify recurring themes and commonalities, recognising broader trends that transcend individual experiences. This layer invites exploration into the relationships between various events, bridging the subjective with observable patterns.

Further down lies the layer of underlying structures. Changemakers can examine social relations, policies, cultural norms, or systemic frameworks that underpin observed patterns. Understanding these structures provides insights into the foundations influencing observed phenomena, integrating both subjective and objective aspects.

Lastly, the deepest layer encompasses mental models—beliefs, values, ideologies—that drive behaviours and shape societal norms. This layer forms the core of subjectivity, representing the intangible aspects that influence individual and collective experiences, adding depth to the understanding of observed phenomena.

For a changemaker, utilising the iceberg model involves peeling back layers systematically. By analysing empirical data, identifying recurring patterns, understanding systemic structures, and delving into underlying mental models, a holistic comprehension of a phenomenon emerges, that encompasses both the subjective and objective perspectives. This comprehensive approach enables changemakers to appreciate the interplay between subjective and objective elements, fostering a deeper understanding crucial for driving effective and sustainable change.

Listen to the full episode:

It’s interesting that regardless of the field, regardless of the discipline, a Ph.D. is a philosophy doctorate, yet researchers rarely question the underlying philosophical assumptions shaping how they build knowledge… let’s not make the same mistake as changemakers!

In the realm of social justice, our pursuit for change often navigates through various channels, methodologies, and practices. Amidst this landscape, the integration of mindfulness emerges as a pivotal tool, offering not just personal development but a transformative force within social movements. Traditionally focused on individual well-being, mindfulness extends its impact to the collective when embedded within the tapestry of social justice and change. This paradigm shift renders mindfulness a potent instrument at both individual and collective levels, and it’s the topic of this week’s podcast episode.

The Need for Mindful Movements

At an individual level, mindfulness fosters self-awareness, illuminating personal privileges, biases, and societal conditioning. Simultaneously, at the collective level, it fosters solidarity and community, creating bonds beyond tangible connections. Mindfulness becomes a conduit for open dialogue, paving the way for addressing challenging issues and nurturing lasting societal transformations.

“Oneness” is often considered to be an absolute or ultimate goal in mainstream mindfulness communities, but we will never realise the oneness of humanity without accounting for the different lived experiences that diverse communities have, and the power dynamics between them. Mindfulness necessitates unlearning ingrained societal norms, confronting biases, and recognising how individual identities intersect with larger systems of power. As agents of change, mindfulness urges us to observe without judgment, to unveil the interconnectedness between our identities and societal constructs, thus empowering us to break free from divisive mindsets.

MBIs Beyond McMindfulness

While mainstream society often commodifies mindfulness, portraying it as a means to navigate stress within existing systems, this narrative neglects its potential as a transformative agent. The rise of ‘McMindfulness’—a commodified, surface-level approach—underscores the importance of redirecting mindfulness towards societal transformation rather than just individual well-being.

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), commonly employed in organisational settings, demonstrate tangible benefits, ranging from heightened productivity to improved mental health. Yet, a crucial pivot requires linking these individual practices to collective mindfulness within social movements, heralding a new era of mindful activism.

Creating accessible and inclusive mindfulness practices and ensuring that mindfulness serves the collective beyond individual gains stands as a challenge and opportunity. Bridging the gap between individual mindfulness practices and a collective, socially conscious approach remains a task awaiting collective exploration and innovation.

The call for mindful social movements to move beyond ‘McMindfulness’ and embrace mindfulness as a tool for societal transformation invites collaboration, innovative approaches, and collective efforts to infuse mindfulness into the very core of social change initiatives. As we step forward, let us ponder: How might we foster more mindful social movements? What interventions can bridge individual mindfulness with collective activism? These questions, when explored collectively, hold the promise of reshaping the trajectory of social justice movements, offering a new paradigm rooted in mindfulness, inclusivity, and transformative change.

Listen to the full episode:

New Humanity, a HCN initiative nestled at the crossroads of social change, self-development, and spirituality, embodies this fusion. At its core lies a call to integrate spirituality into the fabric of social change—a universal appeal irrespective of religious or non-religious affiliations. Our 2024 free coaching program, built around the framework of 23 inner development goals mapped to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, underscores the importance of nurturing leaders who can steer themselves and their communities toward global sustainability. Check out the Renew Humanity mindfulness exercises.

In the realm of social change and sustainable development, the integration of permaculture design principles has offered an innovative and holistic approach. The first of these principles is Observation and Interaction, which like other permaculture principles transcends the agricultural context, offering invaluable insights and methodologies applicable to social change endeavours guided by design and systems thinking. In this episode, I explored the permaculture principle Observe and Interact through a systems and design thinking lens for changemakers, and in subsequent episodes each month throughout 2024 we will explore the other 11 permaculture principles.

Understanding Observation and Interaction in Permaculture

In permaculture, Observation and Interaction highlights the significance of keen observation and thoughtful engagement with natural systems before intervening or initiating change. This principle encourages practitioners to immerse themselves within the ecosystem they aim to cultivate or influence, fostering a deep understanding of its intricacies, patterns, and dynamics.

In the context of social change, the Observation and Interaction principle serves as a guiding beacon for creating meaningful, sustainable impact, and grounded in systems thinking and design thinking it can make our social change interventions more effective in a number of ways:

1. Contextual Understanding: Observation stands as the precursor to informed action. In social change endeavours, this involves immersing oneself within communities or systems, actively listening, and comprehending the complexities, needs, and dynamics therein. Through careful observation, stakeholders gain crucial insights, identify patterns, and uncover latent opportunities or challenges for intervention.

2. Human-Centric Approach: Interaction, the complementary component, signifies the engagement and collaboration with stakeholders. It involves building trust, fostering relationships, and co-creating solutions rooted in community needs and aspirations. This collaborative approach ensures that initiatives are not imposed but co-designed with those they aim to benefit, thereby ensuring relevance and ownership within the community.

3. Systems Thinking and Iterative Design: By integrating systems thinking, Observation and Interaction encourage a comprehensive understanding of interconnected factors influencing social issues. This holistic view allows for the identification of leverage points—strategic areas where small changes can yield significant impact within the system. Moreover, it fosters iterative design processes, enabling adjustments and refinements based on continuous observation and feedback loops.

4. Sustainability and Adaptability: Through careful observation and ongoing interaction, social change initiatives become inherently adaptive and resilient. This approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of social systems and allows for the incorporation of adaptive strategies in response to evolving needs, ensuring long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

Applying Observation in Systems Thinking

A SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is a valuable tool for the initial stages of observation and interaction with a system because it provides a structured framework for assessing the internal and external factors that can influence the system. Here’s how a SWOT analysis is useful during these stages:

1. Identification of Internal Factors (Strengths and Weaknesses):
   • Strengths: By identifying the strengths of a system, observers can recognise what is currently working well. This could include internal resources, capabilities, or positive aspects of the system that contribute to its effectiveness.
   • Weaknesses: Observing weaknesses helps in understanding areas of the system that may be vulnerable or in need of improvement. This could involve internal challenges, limitations, or aspects that hinder the system’s optimal performance.
2. Recognition of External Factors (Opportunities and Threats):
   • Opportunities: Identifying external opportunities involves observing and recognising favourable conditions, trends, or potential avenues for improvement in the external environment. It helps in understanding how the system can leverage these factors for positive outcomes.
   • Threats: Observing threats allows for the identification of external challenges, risks, or potential obstacles that may impact the system negatively. This awareness is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate or navigate these threats.

Observation in Design Thinking

Observation and interaction play pivotal roles throughout the entire design thinking process.

The key principles of design thinking include:

1. Empathy: Understanding the needs, perspectives, and experiences of the end-users is fundamental. Design thinkers immerse themselves in the user’s environment to gain a deep understanding of their challenges and aspirations.
2. Define: Clearly defining the problem is crucial. Design thinkers work to reframe and articulate the problem in a way that inspires innovative solutions. This stage involves synthesising insights gained from empathetic research.
3. Ideate: Generating a wide range of ideas without judgment is the ideation phase. Brainstorming sessions and other creative techniques are employed to encourage out-of-the-box thinking.
4. Prototype: Developing tangible representations of ideas allows for quick testing and iteration. Prototypes can be low-fidelity models or even simple sketches that help refine concepts.
5. Test: Iterative testing involves gathering feedback on prototypes from end-users. This feedback loop allows for further refinement and improvement of the design based on real-world insights.
6. Iterate: The process is cyclical, with continuous refinement based on testing and feedback. Iteration helps to progressively improve the solution and adapt to changing needs.

Design thinking is not a linear process; it is flexible and can involve moving back and forth between stages, and observation and interaction continue to play a central role throughout this process.

Listen to the full episode:

As we navigate the complex landscape of social change, incorporating the ethos of Observation and Interaction becomes not merely a choice but an imperative. It signifies a commitment to co-creating transformative and enduring change—one that is contextually grounded, human-centric, and environmentally sustainable.

In this podcast episode, I delved deep into a concept close to my heart: the mindset of abundance and its pivotal role in driving social change. At the core of our discussions lies Catalytic Thinking, a theory rooted in the philosophy of abundance, initially proposed by Hilde Gottlieb, urging a reframe of questions, fostering collaboration, and highlighting its transformative potential in driving meaningful, enduring change. It invites listeners to join in fostering a future where abundance is not an aspiration but a shared reality through collaboration, compassion, and collective action.

Catalytic Thinking as a Theory of Change

Catalytic Thinking revolves around three intertwined observations that form the foundation of its approach to positive social change:

Firstly, the immense power we hold in creating impactful change by understanding the cause-and-effect relationships. Shifting from merely reacting to symptoms, our focus sharpens on identifying and addressing the root causes that fuel societal issues.

Secondly, the irreplaceable significance of people in effecting social change. While resources are essential, it’s the people themselves who drive change, foster innovation, and execute solutions. Hence, our emphasis at the Humanitarian Changemakers Network on building capacity and empowering individuals with the skills needed for impactful action.

Thirdly, the transformative potential when we come together. Collective enoughness emerged as a crucial concept—an acknowledgment that together, we possess all that is needed. It’s in unity that we transcend scarcity, tapping into an abundance that elevates our shared goals and aspirations.

Asking Questions of Abundance

Catalytic Thinking hinges on the premise that our thoughts mold our actions. By posing questions grounded in abundance rather than scarcity, we unlock a stream of innovative and effective solutions. For instance, reframing queries from ‘what problem do we need to solve?’ to ‘what future do we aim to create?’ shifts the focus from immediate challenges to visionary objectives.

Instead of asking…	catalytic thinking asks…
What is the problem and how will we solve it?	What is the future we want to create, and what will it take to create that reality?
Can we trust them? What if they steal my idea / our stuff?	Who else cares about this? What can we accomplish together that none of us can accomplish on our own?
How will we pay for that? Where will the money come from?	What resources do we have together that none of us has all of on our own?

There are three questions you can ask to get to the core of catalytic thinking:

1. What do we really want? → Why? → what will that make possible? → for whom?
2. Who else cares about this?
3. What do we have together?

Moreover, Catalytic Thinking challenges the traditional mindset of resource scarcity. It underscores the difference between tangible resources and the means to acquire them, thereby guiding us towards alternative solutions that might bypass the need for traditional forms of wealth. As Hilde says, “when we change the way we see things, things change.”

Systems to Overcome Scarcity: Mutual Aid

This paradigm shift extends further into the concept of Mutual Aid, a cooperative approach to resource-sharing and community support. Mutual Aid challenges the notion of competition ingrained in social structures and emphasises collaboration, echoing the belief that we thrive collectively rather than individually.

Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist, geographer, and biologist, argued that mutual aid is a natural factor of evolution in his work “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,” which was published in 1902. Kropotkin challenged the prevailing social Darwinist view that competition and the struggle for existence were the primary driving forces of evolution. Instead, he proposed that cooperation and mutual aid among individuals within a species played a crucial role in the development and survival of species. Here are some key points in Kropotkin’s argument:

1. Observations in Nature: Kropotkin drew on his observations of nature to support his argument. He pointed to various examples of cooperation and mutual aid among animals, such as birds nesting in colonies, animals hunting in packs, and bees working together in hives. These observations contradicted the popular notion of nature as a “war of all against all.”
2. Survival Advantage: Kropotkin argued that mutual aid provided a survival advantage. In many situations, cooperation and working together increased the chances of survival for individuals and the species as a whole. He believed that species engaging in mutual aid were better equipped to face environmental challenges, find food, and protect themselves from predators.
3. Social Instinct in Humans: Kropotkin extended his argument to human societies, suggesting that the principle of mutual aid was ingrained in human nature. He contended that human communities were not solely built on competition and conflict but were equally shaped by cooperation, solidarity, and mutual support.
4. Sociability as an Evolutionary Force: Kropotkin proposed that the evolutionary success of social species, including humans, was closely tied to their ability to live and work together in groups. He argued that the social instinct was a powerful force in evolution, fostering the development of social bonds, communication, and shared activities.
5. Rejection of Malthusian Ideas: Kropotkin criticised Thomas Malthus’s ideas about population growth and scarcity of resources. While Malthusian theory suggested that competition for limited resources would lead to the survival of the fittest, Kropotkin argued that the positive effects of mutual aid could mitigate the impact of resource scarcity.

In summary, Kropotkin’s argument for mutual aid as a natural factor of evolution was based on his observations of cooperative behaviours in the animal kingdom, the survival advantages of cooperation, and his belief in the innate sociability of humans and other social species. He presented an alternative perspective to the prevailing ideas of his time, challenging the notion that evolution was solely driven by competition and conflict.

Listen to the full episode:

Catalytic Thinking and the ethos of abundance it embodies represent a beacon of hope in the realm of social change, that urges us to challenge the status quo, reframe our questions, and embrace collaboration as the catalyst for meaningful and lasting transformation. As part of our commitment to fostering Mutual Aid, the Humanitarian Changemakers Network is launching Mutual Aid Australia—a platform to share resources, ideas, and support. This initiative is a testament to the power of collective effort in building a more abundant and equitable society – listen to the full episode to learn more!

While it may sound academic and complex, systems-thinking holds profound potential and applications in our efforts to drive positive change in the world. In this episode of Changemaker Q&A, we delve into what systems thinking is, its history, and why it’s crucial for addressing ‘wicked problems’ in society. We’ll also discuss its core principles and how it helps us tackle complex issues holistically, identify leverage points, and embrace non-linear cause and effect relationships.

Systems Thinking Foundations

To comprehend the significance of systems thinking, we must first reflect on how fundamental thought patterns have shaped our worldview. As early as the 19th and 20th centuries, philosophers like René Descartes popularised dualism, the separation of mind and body. This shift towards dualistic thinking extended into our perception of reality, leading to divisions like theory versus practice, or macro versus micro perspectives. These distinctions, however, do not accurately represent the true nature of reality.

Systems thinking challenges these conventional thought patterns. It advocates for a more holistic perspective, acknowledging the interdependencies and intricate relationships that form our complex world. In this way, systems thinking transcends the narrow lenses through which we traditionally view the world, enabling us to better understand complex challenges and address them effectively.

Systems thinking evolved in the 1950s and 60s to challenge the conventional academic approaches of the time. It subsequently branched into three distinct waves: hard systems thinking, soft systems thinking, and critical systems thinking.

1. Hard Systems Thinking: Focused on well-defined, mechanical systems with clear inputs and outputs.
2. Soft Systems Thinking: Addressed complex, human-centric systems with multiple perspectives, recognising the absence of a single “right” solution. Examples include healthcare and education systems.
3. Critical Systems Thinking: Rooted in critical theory, this approach assumes that systems are not functioning optimally and aims to rectify issues. It examines power imbalances and considers interdisciplinary aspects like social, ecological, economic, and political phenomena.

There are several characteristics that distinguish systems thinking from traditional thinking:

1. Holistic Approach: Systems thinking emphasises considering the whole picture, examining relationships between elements, and recognising interconnections.
2. Non-Linear Causality: It challenges the linear cause-and-effect thinking prevalent in conventional approaches, acknowledging that many factors interact in complex ways.
3. Feedback Loops: Systems thinking explores feedback loops where outcomes become inputs, creating a dynamic understanding of causation.
4. Emergence: The idea that systems can manifest something qualitatively different from their component parts, often described as “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
5. Long-Term Focus: Systems thinking encourages a forward-thinking approach, considering the far-reaching implications of actions.
6. Interdisciplinarity: Recognizing the importance of various fields and perspectives in understanding complex problems.

Systems Thinking in Social Change

Systems thinking, especially critical systems thinking, is most suited for addressing wicked problems—complex issues for which there is no single solution. Wicked problems encompass challenges like climate change, human rights violations, and conflict, often involving myriad stakeholders and interdisciplinary factors. Systems thinking’s holistic perspective allows us to examine these problems comprehensively and discover previously unrecognised interconnections and causes.

When employing systems thinking, the ultimate goal is systems change. This concept differs from systemic change, which pertains to modifications within a social system, such as legislative or policy changes. Instead, systems change involves transforming the entirety of a system, whether it is hard, soft, or critical. Systems change focuses on the holistic analysis of complex phenomena, acknowledging that a system is more than the sum of its parts.

By embracing systems thinking, we gain several advantages in our pursuit of social change:

1. Better Understanding of Complex Causes: Systems thinking allows us to identify root causes of complex issues by exploring feedback loops and non-linear relationships.
2. Leverage Identification: We can pinpoint leverage points within the system, where small changes can yield significant results.
3. Non-Linear Approach: Embracing non-linear causality offers a more comprehensive understanding of intricate issues.
4. Holistic Problem Solving: We can address challenges in their entirety, ensuring that solutions consider all elements and relationships within the system.

Listen to the full episode:

In a world where immediate needs often overshadow long-term thinking, systems thinking equips us to address both the present and the future. It empowers us to tackle wicked problems more effectively by exploring complex causes, identifying leverage points, and understanding non-linear cause-and-effect relationships. Whether you’re an advocate, an academic, or anyone passionate about driving social change, systems thinking is a powerful tool in your arsenal. As we move forward in our collective pursuit of a better world, remember that embracing systems thinking is a step towards a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to social change.

https://youtu.be/DpV9T17x_Zo

As we approach the turn of a new year, our intentions often align with resolutions aimed at self-improvement. For Ashley, a member of our community working in the non-profit sector, the focus for the upcoming year is on self-care and self-development. The final 2023 podcast episode dives deep into Ashley’s questions about self-development for social change through the Inner Development Goals (IDGs), a comprehensive framework designed to foster personal development while actively contributing to broader social change.

In 2024 I am aiming to focus more on self care and self development — do you have any resources or recommendations for someone working in the not-for-profit sector?”

Ashley, Changemaker Q&A listener

The Inner Development Goals Framework

The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals cover a wide range of issues that involve people with different needs, values, and convictions. There is a vision of what needs to happen, but progress along this vision has so far been disappointing. We lack the inner capacity to deal with our increasingly complex environment and challenges. Fortunately, modern research shows that the inner abilities we now all need can be developed. This was the starting point for the ‘Inner Development Goals’ initiative.

The Inner Development Goals framework emerges as a response to the need for robust inner capabilities, crucial for navigating the complexity of today’s social change landscape. This framework comprises 23 goals grouped into five categories: Being, Thinking, Relating, Collaborating, and Acting:

1. Being: Cultivating Inner Harmony

• Inner Compass: A commitment to values serving the greater good.
• Integrity and Authenticity: Acting sincerely and honestly.
• Openness and Learning Mindset: Embracing curiosity and change.
• Self-awareness: Reflective understanding and self-regulation.
• Presence: Engaging in the present moment without judgment.

2. Thinking: Developing Cognitive Skills

• Critical Thinking: Evaluating information and perspectives critically.
• Complexity Awareness: Understanding systemic and complex issues.
• Perspective Skills: Embracing and utilising diverse viewpoints.
• Sensemaking: Comprehending and structuring unknown phenomena.
• Long-term Orientation and Visioning: Sustaining commitment to larger visions.

3. Relating: Fostering Empathy and Connection

• Appreciation: Cultivating gratitude and joy.
• Connectedness: Recognising and feeling part of a larger whole.
• Humility: Acting for the greater good without self-importance.
• Empathy and Compassion: Relating with kindness and addressing suffering.

4. Collaborating: Enhancing Social Skills

• Communication Skills: Genuine dialogue and conflict resolution.
• Co-creation Skills: Building collaborative relationships.
• Intercultural Competence: Embracing diversity and inclusivity.
• Trust: Building and maintaining trustful relationships.
• Mobilization Skills: Inspiring and engaging others in shared purposes.

5. Acting: Enabling Change through Agency

• Courage: Taking decisive action and challenging existing norms.
• Creativity: Generating original ideas and disrupting conventions.
• Optimism: Sustaining hope and confidence in meaningful change.
• Perseverance: Remaining determined and engaged despite delays.

Embracing the Inner Development Goals for 2024

Implementing the IDGs isn’t just a personal quest; it’s a global movement toward holistic and sustainable change. The IDGs, offered as an open-access framework, provide a roadmap for individuals and organisations to cultivate essential traits for societal transformation. Throughout 2024 we are launching a FREE coaching program for members of the Humanitarian Changemakers Network that explores the Inner Development Goals framework.

Listen to the full episode:

If you’re ready for a transformative 2024—where personal growth and societal evolution intertwine, listen to the full episode of Changemaker Q&A where I explore the IDG framework, and enrol in the New Humanity Inner Development Goals Course to start working towards the goals throughout the year!

“What does it mean to live a good life?” This philosophical question carries profound significance for changemakers and those driven by the desire to make a positive impact in the world. In this podcast episode, I explored various perspectives on what constitutes a good life, considering the ethical, cultural, and societal viewpoints that influence this complex question, and shared my personal framework for conscious living that helps changemakers align their values, passions, and purpose to create a fulfilling life while contributing to meaningful social change.

The Philosophical Perspective

To properly grasp the significance of the concept of living a good life for humanity, we can turn to ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose notion of eudaimonia is one of the best-known conceptions of what it takes to live a good life. Eudaimonia encompasses personal happiness, flourishing, well-being, and a sense of purpose. Aristotle argued for a eudaimonic society in which individuals are virtuous, guided by moral values like courage, justice, wisdom, and temperance.

Key characteristics of a good life in his view include:

1. Virtue: Aristotle believed that eudaimonia is closely tied to moral and intellectual virtues. Virtuous actions and character traits lead to a flourishing life. These virtues include courage, wisdom, justice, and temperance.
2. Rationality: Aristotle saw humans as rational beings, and he argued that rationality played a fundamental role in achieving eudaimonia. He believed that individuals must use their reason to make ethical decisions and live in accordance with their highest potential.
3. Fulfilment of Human Function: Aristotle believed that every being has a unique function or purpose. For humans, this function is rationality. Eudaimonia is achieved by living in a way that fully realises and expresses this human function.
4. Balance and Moderation: Aristotle emphasised the importance of finding a balanced and moderate path between extremes. For example, courage is a virtue, but recklessness and cowardice are extremes to be avoided.
5. Social and Ethical Life: Eudaimonia is not solely an individual endeavour but is closely connected to social and ethical life. Aristotle believed that living in a just and harmonious community is essential for achieving eudaimonia.

There are other philosophical perspectives like utilitarianism, which emphasises maximising overall happiness, and deontology, which prioritises the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions based on moral principles, that we can use to guide us in living a good life in the ethical sense.

Cultural Approaches

Aboriginal Australians have a rich and diverse set of cultural values, practices, and traditions that shape their perception of a good life. It’s important to note that Aboriginal cultures are incredibly diverse, with hundreds of distinct groups and languages, so there is no single, uniform perspective on a good life.

However, some common elements can be found across many Aboriginal cultures:

1. Connection to the Land: Aboriginal cultures have a deep spiritual and cultural connection to the land and the environment. Land is often considered the source of identity, belonging, and well-being. A good life for many Aboriginal Australians involves maintaining a harmonious relationship with the land and respecting its sacred sites.
2. Cultural Heritage: Preservation and continuation of cultural practices, stories, languages, and art are essential for a good life. Passing down cultural knowledge to future generations is a fundamental aspect of well-being.
3. Family and Community: Family and community play a central role in the lives of many Aboriginal Australians. Strong family bonds, extended kinship networks, and the support of the community are key elements of a fulfilling life.
4. Spirituality and Connection to Ancestors: Many Aboriginal cultures have a strong spiritual dimension, and maintaining a connection with ancestors and ancestral spirits is crucial. Rituals, ceremonies, and Dreamtime stories often serve as a way to connect with the spiritual world.
5. Caring for Country: A sense of responsibility and custodianship for the land, known as “Caring for Country,” is central to well-being. People belong to the land, the land doesn’t belong to people. This involves stewardship of the land, conservation efforts, and maintaining the balance of ecosystems.
6. Social Equity and Justice: Many Aboriginal cultures place great importance on social equity and justice. A good life is often associated with the pursuit of fairness, social cohesion, and addressing issues of inequality and discrimination that Indigenous communities may face.
7. Cultural Healing and Well-being: Some Aboriginal communities emphasise cultural healing practices to address the historical traumas and injustices that have affected their communities. Healing ceremonies and counselling, often grounded in cultural traditions, are seen as crucial to well-being.
8. Self-Determination: The ability to have a say in one’s own life, make decisions for one’s community, and have a voice in issues that affect Aboriginal communities is highly valued.

Different cultures around the world have varying perceptions of what constitutes a good life. These perceptions are influenced by cultural values, practices, and traditions. Here are some examples:

Japanese Ikigai:

• In Japanese culture, “ikigai” refers to the concept of finding a reason for being, a sense of purpose in life.
• It involves the intersection of what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs, and what you can be paid for.
• The pursuit of ikigai encourages a balanced life, emphasising personal fulfilment and contribution to society.

Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH):

• Bhutan has adopted a unique approach to measuring the well-being of its citizens through GNH rather than GDP.
• GNH includes nine domains, such as psychological well-being, health, education, and cultural diversity.
• Bhutan’s culture places a strong emphasis on spiritual well-being, community, and harmony with nature.

Nordic Hygge:

• In Nordic countries, particularly Denmark, “hygge” represents a cultural emphasis on coziness, togetherness, and comfort.
• A good life is often associated with enjoying simple pleasures, like spending time with loved ones, lighting candles, and savoring comfort food.
• The focus is on creating a warm and relaxed atmosphere, which is believed to contribute to happiness and well-being.

Confucian Values in China:

• Chinese culture, heavily influenced by Confucianism, places value on family, respect for elders, and social harmony.
• A good life is often defined by fulfilling one’s roles within the family and society, showing filial piety, and maintaining strong social bonds.
• Traditional practices like ancestor veneration are integral to Chinese notions of well-being.

These examples illustrate the diversity of cultural values and practices that shape perceptions of a good life. Each culture places its unique emphasis on different aspects of well-being, and individuals within these cultures may find their own path to a fulfilling and meaningful life by aligning with these values and traditions.

Conscious Living: A “Good Life” For Changemakers

Despite differing views across different cultures or philosophical perspectives about what it means to live a good life, the one thing that appears to be similar across these perspectives is the notion that a good life is one that is good for both the individual, and their wider community, and it encompasses personal happiness and the common good. For us as changemakers, living a good life exists at the intersection of self development and social change.

The framework I use for assessing whether or not I am living a ‘good life’ is my conscious living framework. Conscious living involves being intentional and continually assessing whether one’s actions align with their internal values, passions, and purpose. To create a visual representation of this framework, imagine a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles: values, passions, and purpose.

1. Values: These are the principles and ethical frameworks that guide your moral compass. They help you determine if you’re living a good life. Examples might include freedom, justice, equality, sustainability, or family. Conduct a values audit to identify your top values.
2. Passions: Your passions are the activities, hobbies, or interests that bring you joy and fulfillment. Prioritise making time for these activities regularly, as they contribute to personal happiness.
3. Purpose: Your purpose is your mission, the reason you believe you were put on this earth. It involves making a positive contribution to society or your community. Create a mission statement or an impact statement that reflects your purpose.

Changemakers can use this framework to evaluate their lifestyle periodically, ensuring alignment with their values, passions, and purpose. External circumstances may change, and it’s vital to adapt consciously to maintain the balance between personal happiness and meaningful societal contributions.

Listen to the full episode

Living a good life as a changemaker entails finding a harmonious balance between personal fulfilment and contributing positively to the world. While philosophical, cultural, and societal perspectives vary, a framework for conscious living helps individuals navigate this journey. By aligning values, passions, and purpose, changemakers can lead more meaningful lives, all while making a substantial impact on their communities and society at large. The pursuit of a good life, in this context, becomes an ongoing journey of self-discovery, purposeful action, and holistic well-being.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOUcnRc-APE

In an era dominated by so-called wicked-problems, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have emerged as a guiding light for changemakers across the globe. But, like any ambitious agenda, they come with their own set of intricacies and shortcomings. As changemakers globally must navigate a landscape dominated by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it’s important to understand how the SDGs evolved from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), why they’re so crucial, and the nuances of their targets and indicators.

The Evolution from MDGs to SDGs:

The story of the SDGs begins with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were established in the year 2000. These goals were designed to tackle specific, measurale issues such as extreme poverty, gender equality, child mortality, and environmental sustainability. The MDGs were a remarkable shift in global focus and marked the first comprehensive development agenda created by the United Nations.

However, as time went on, it became evident that while there were significant accomplishments in some areas, there were also shortcomings. For instance, even though extreme poverty decreased, general poverty rates saw an increase. This prompted the need for a more comprehensive and all-encompassing development agenda.

In 2015, the United Nations took the next step in the global development journey by introducing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Unlike the MDGs, which mainly targeted developing countries, the SDGs are universal and applicable to all 193 member nations of the United Nations. They cover a wider spectrum of issues, including inequalities, injustices, and other challenges relevant to both developing and developed nations.

One of the strengths of the SDGs lies in their holistic approach. They recognise the interconnectedness of global and local challenges, understanding that no issue exists in isolation. This systems-thinking approach is crucial when dealing with “wicked problems” that transcend economic, social, cultural, and political boundaries. The SDGs provide a comprehensive framework that acknowledges these interrelations and takes a more holistic view of development.

SDG Indicators: A Challenge for Measuring Change

While the SDGs are undeniably ambitious and comprehensive, they have their own set of challenges, mainly revolving around the targets and indicators. Unlike the MDGs, which had straightforward, quantifiable targets, the SDGs use a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators. This creates a problem where ideals, norms, values, or principles can become the indicators for targets. The OECD has criticised that “a healthy dose of objectivity is warranted. Otherwise, we risk falling victim to the tyranny of an acronym, suspending critical thinking because it could endanger the agreement about the SDGs.” However, I don’t agree with this sentiment. It would be unreasonable to assume that setting universal and objective, clearly measurable targets for each goal would work, given that each country has its own unique context.

Each SDG has a set of targets, and these targets have at least one indicator. There are two types of targets for each goal, outcome targets (with a number, eg: 1.1), and means of implementation (MOI) targets (with a letter, eg: 1.a). Many of the indicators for these targets – particularly the MOI targets – are not sufficient for measuring the success of ay efforts towards that target.

Indices are one of the most important communicative and strategic tools we have, because when we are developing a theory of change → anything to guide the work that we are doing, the indicators are the measurement of success or not. If we use arbitrary insufficient indicators, then it means we are going to be directing our efforts at something that isn’t actually indicative at the type of change we want to see.

For instance, SDG aims 5 to promote gender equality and empower women, with a specific means of implementation target to use technology for empowerment. However, the indicator for this target is simply the proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone by sex:

Target	Indicator
5.b Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women.	5.b Proportion of individuals who own a mobile telephone, by sex

I’m sure it doesn’t take an expert to recognise that the ratio of men to women in a population that own mobile phones does not say anything about whether mobile phone technology has actually been used to empower women.

A major concern with many of these means of implementation targets is that rely on quantitative indicators that compare static spatio-temporal differences. These indicators can only measure the outcomes of change rather than the dynamic process of change itself. While static differences represent change outcomes, they don’t capture a dynamic change processes, which is what the MOI targets are focused on.

As we’re already halfway through the SDG agenda, it’s crucial to address these concerns and work towards more nuanced and effective ways to measure change. While the framework and the overall agenda of the SDGs are comprehensive and valuable, the effectiveness of the indicators cannot be overstated. Meaningful and well-researched indicators that can be applied across diverse development contexts are the key to accurately assessing the success of any interventions and strategies.

Listen to the full episode:

The Sustainable Development Goals are undeniably significant and provide an essential global agenda for development. For changemakers and organisations involved in social change, understanding the SDGs and their specific targets is vital. However, it’s equally important to critically evaluate the indicators attached to each target and, if necessary, develop more suitable metrics for measuring success. As we work towards 2030 and beyond, a nuanced understanding of change processes and more effective indicators will be the driving force behind achieving these ambitious global goals. The world needs changemakers who not only strive for a better future but also measure their progress effectively and adapt their strategies to ensure that no one is left behind on the path to sustainable development.