By Jim Rough
Key to addressing and solving the big issues in our society— including wars, poverty, environmental damage, discrimination, and peak oil— is to spark a transformation in the quality of our thinking. This transformation of thinking needs to be more than where all citizens become more informed, intelligent, and involved. It must also be where, collectively, we become wise.
What we need is a new social invention that, like turning on a light switch, transforms us as individuals and as a whole people. It needs to help us break out of our collective denial, see problems as they really are, and to work on them collaboratively and creatively. Sometimes we will need to invent new solutions, but mostly we just need to implement solutions that already exist. This process should be where we reach a shared perspective, but it shouldn’t be coercive or limit individual uniqueness in any way. It should help us benefit from our diversity and appreciate one another for being unique.
If we had this kind of “light switch,” all current problems would be positively affected. Just by working together in this “enlightened” way, crime, wars, discrimination, and citizen apathy would become less problematic. Market and government efficiencies would soar. Beyond these benefits from the process, we’d also focus on issues like global warming, abortion, taxes, health care, peak oil, and pollution and develop solution strategies. This magical-seeming social invention already exists.
The needed “light switch” is highly dependent on a particular quality of thinking known as “Choice-Creating.” Consider these five possible forms of public conversation:
- “Power struggle” where whoever is strongest or in a position of authority gets their way and everyone else is judged by how loyal they are. When nations don’t rely on a constitution, this is generally what happens.
- “Reasoned debate” where ideas compete, are “rationally” evaluated, and voted on. This is the goal of our current rule-of-law, market-based process.
- “Deliberation” where experts, wise elders, or informed citizens investigate selected problems and carefully weigh the available options so that better policies are chosen. This is what political philosophers have in mind when they promote “deliberative democracy.”
- “Dialogue” where people explore topics open-mindedly and open-heartedly, growing in their understanding of issues, tolerance of one another, and feelings of connectedness to all people. Dialogue often results in shared understandings but rarely specific decisions.
- “Choice-Creating” where diverse people address difficult issues creatively and collaboratively, and determine unanimous, win/win conclusions. People speak authentically from the heart. Progress happens in shifts and breakthroughs more than through logic.
Choice-Creating is similar to deliberation in that people reach specific, thoughtful conclusions, and similar to dialogue in that the process transforms people and the culture, but it is distinct. In fact, the magical switch only becomes possible through making this distinction. The heart of democracy is, or ought to be, Choice-Creating where everyone faces the most important issues creatively and collaboratively determining answers that work for all. This isn’t the way our current system works, nor can many people envisage this quality of thinking for our system, except in a crisis. You often hear people say, “The only way things will change is when our problems get so bad, that people have to change.” But, we need a way to shift to Choice-Creating now, before things get that bad.
In the beginnings of the United States, there was a choice-creating moment after the Revolutionary War, when “We the People” adopted the U.S. Constitution as the ultimate authority. This document “flipped the switch” on the quality of public conversation at that time, shifting it from level 1 to level 2. Rather than being in a “power struggle” where an elite gets its way, we entered more into a “reasoned debate” where ideas compete within the rules. The new structure sparked a shift in the thinking of individuals toward being more entrepreneurial.
Today the quality of our public conversation is regressing back to “power struggle.” The battle for supremacy among transnational corporations now predominates the media, the culture, and the actions of legislators.
Some people seek to head off this regression by proposing reforms to campaign financing, promoting term limits for elected officials, denying legal “personhood” to corporations, or educating voters on the issues. While these steps can bolster “reasoned debate” as the official thinking process, it won’t be enough to adequately address the issues we face. We need another “light switch” that shifts us forward to an even higher level of thinking, talking and acting.
The advent of cell phones, television, and the Internet are just a few of the technological advances impacting our public conversation. Now, people have more direct access to information and other people than ever before. The rise of “organizational development” as a field of study and the use of facilitators in meetings have demonstrated that higher forms of talking and thinking can be achieved in organizations.
Many governments are now seeking to facilitate more citizen involvement. They provide forums for people to thoughtfully examine issues, weigh available options and influence policy. In Denmark for instance, the government regularly convenes small groups of randomly selected citizens who meet over time and consider the dangers and benefits of new technologies, weigh options for how to handle them, and suggest policy options. The conclusions of these citizen advisory boards make it easier for legislators to serve the public interest, rather than special interests.
In one powerful example the province of British Columbia, Canada, gathered 161 randomly selected citizens who evaluated, over the course of a year, different options for how elections can be conducted. They recommended a strategy that was not supported by any political party, but which received 58% of the votes.
Although the advent of these new deliberative forms of public conversation is very positive, ultimately they are sub-conversations and not the way the system actually works. They are one-off events, within a larger public conversation that operates normally.
Dialogue is a mode of thinking and talking, which complements deliberation. With dialogue, people inquire into difficult topics in an open-minded way, change their minds and hearts, and grow in their positions. Often, non-profit organizations convene large networks of citizen groups to meet in dialogue on topics like racism, that require a change of heart. If enough people are involved and the process continues for long enough, people feel transformed by these meetings and affect the culture.
Conceptually, deliberation and dialogue fit together beautifully. Dialogue can be used to open people’s minds and hearts on issues. Then deliberation can be used to help them reach specific decisions. Presumably this process could be the “light switch” that shifts the system, but it doesn’t work out that way. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to meld the two, and the new conversation process still operates within the old.
There are two social inventions that make it possible to “flip the switch.”
Using them you can spark the necessary all-inclusive “We the People” choice-creating public conversation. They are: 1) “Dynamic Facilitation,” through which a skilled facilitator helps assure choice-creating in small groups of diverse people. (See www.ToBe.net); and 2) the “Wisdom Council,” which uses Dynamic Facilitation to generate a choice-creating conversation throughout large systems of people. (See www.SocietysBreakthrough.com)
A meeting facilitator can be a “light switch.” He or she helps people elevate their quality of thinking, usually by helping them to focus on what is solvable, stay on the topic, break big problems into smaller ones, mute passions in favor of rationality, and proceed step by step down a logical path.
The dynamic facilitator, on the other hand, helps people do choice-creating. He or she helps people find and address the “real” issue no matter how big and impossible-seeming, and to trust their natural inclinations. He or she assures that each comment is heard and appreciated by the group, framing it as a solution, concern, item of data, or new statement of the challenge. This way, no matter what comment is made or how it is said, the group benefits from it.
The dynamic facilitator goes “with the flow” of energy in the group, rather than managing people and keeping them on track. He or she encourages authenticity by helping participants to voice their deep concerns or half-ideas, and protects them from receiving any judgment. Group breakthroughs emerge in different forms: new solutions, a new sense of what the real problem is, or a change of heart about a previously entrenched position. In the end the group co-creates a shared perspective.
A Wisdom Council uses groups of randomly selected people and Dynamic Facilitation to spark a choice-creating conversation throughout a large system of people. It “flips the switch” for a city, corporation, or nation allowing the whole system to address its most pressing issues creatively and collaboratively and reach unanimous positions. This is the Holy Grail of democracy or of employee-involvement programs, allowing “We the People” to responsibly take the lead.
Here’s how it works: Every four months twelve people are randomly selected from the community. They choose the issues they address, are dynamically facilitated to develop unanimous positions, and present their conclusions back to the community. Everyone is invited to consider the Wisdom Council’s positions in face-to-face dialogues, informal conversations, or on the Internet. Over time, an ongoing choice-creating conversation of everyone evolves, where collective understandings develop.
Experiments with this concept in cities, counties, government agencies, corporations, schools and cooperatives indicate that it works. When you randomly select people and dynamically facilitate them, they choose what’s most important and determine unanimous conclusions. All are excited about both the conclusions and the process. In fact, many report that the experience was life-changing to them personally.
Interestingly, the choice-creating process in the small group resonates with the whole community. Those that hear the report of the Wisdom Council tend to visit with others in a similar tone and express support for both the conclusions and the process. Even those not in the audience are drawn into the public conversation eventually. Of course, they are already part of the random lotteries but even more, when they express themselves about these same issues in any format they become participants. Any individual who expresses a substantially different point of view than what the Wisdom Council said, will attract attention and gain a respectful hearing.
When people first hear about the concept of the Wisdom Council, they often imagine how this new public conversation would influence policy. Yes, it would inform and involve more people, help build majority support for general-interest policy positions, and inform legislators. But more important is the prospect it offers for transforming our collective way of thinking, talking and making decisions. If we can all participate in one creative conversation and reach shared decisions, then all sorts of intractable problems become solvable, usually in ways that reach beyond policy.
A plan for going forward
There are four stages to “flipping the switch.”
First, a number of communities and organizations need to experiment with the Wisdom Council. These experiments need to be evaluated and publicized, encouraging even more organizations and localities to try it. This is something ordinary citizens can initiate with or without the approval of elected officials.
Second, groups of non-profit organizations need to convene informal demonstrations of the Wisdom Council at the national level in the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, Brazil, and elsewhere. Because the Wisdom Council uses randomly selected citizens who choose their own issue and reach a unanimous perspective, it creates a legitimate symbol of “We the People.” Since each Wisdom Council also unanimously endorses the process, it is chartered by a symbol of We the People. As each cycle gains authority, interest and resonance this new voice become a legitimate voice of “We the People.”
Third, as Wisdom Councils demonstrate their ability to confront real issues and generate positive positions, legislatures and courts will find it impossible to ignore them. Legislators will realize that this public interest voice frees them from the domination of special interests and enhances their role. Eventually, they will enshrine the Wisdom Council process into the various national and state constitutions.
The fourth step is to eventually establish a global Wisdom Council since it is becoming obvious that many issues can only be addressed at this level. Despite many different languages, levels of education and nationalities, the Wisdom Council process provides a way to make a new international forum of this type.
A Call to Action – It is doubtful that the global mind shift from “power struggle” to “all of us working together” will be started by elected officials. Ordinary citizens who appreciate this vision of transformation will probably initiate the process. Small groups of people are already beginning to start Wisdom Councils in their organizations and local areas. As people experience personal and collective empowerment from these experiments, other experiments in other systems will also be sparked.
A non-profit organization, the Center for Wise Democracy, is available to support your interest in this new vision and to link with other non-profit organizations in helping bring it about. (See www.WiseDemocracy.org) If you choose to explore this further you will discover that ordinary people do care, are wise, and can work creatively together to solve the thorny problems that confront us. We just need to give them the chance.