Update January 18, 2019: I wrote this post seven years ago. It’s every bit as applicable today as it was then – maybe more so. That said, even with the transgressions on the inhabitants of the White House, I have hope that by the uncovering of the evil that is possible at high levels of government we will wake up to the need for us reassess our personal role in society and how we influence.
The references I make to several of the tech companies are also relevant as are the questions … as we are still awaiting answers.
From February 23, 20011
Yesterday I commented on a provocative blog post by my friend Greg Rader, “The Future of Status – Conspicuous Production.”
Imagine if there was no money and no things to buy. How would you show the world your worth? Or how would you show yourself?
Would your value lie in the number of friends you have – physical or electronic? Would it lie in the quality and depth or your relationships with these friends (kind of three-dimensional assessment)? Maybe it would lie in the number pieces of art you produced, or books and articles you’ve written.
Or better yet … what about the number of karma points you’ve accumulated by doing random acts of good? Haven’t we reached a point on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs where we can at least flirt with self actualization?
Over your last couple posts, I think you’ve been us leading to this. It’s obvious, the standard societal measurement of wealth and worth just isn’t cutting it for you. I join you brother.
Maybe this is the first step – discontent. Only then we can find our own “store of value.” and from there truly maximize it’s worth. Maybe this is what mean when I talk about “On the Road to Your Perfect World.” Thanks for pointing me the way. 🙂
I viewed the focus of Greg’s piece as: “Isn’t there a way of presenting our value to world other than just through the money we make and our consumption habits?” As you can tell from my comment above – it’s a topic that’s been on my mind also.
Recently, in light of the sky-high valuations of several dotcom 2.0 stocks, such as Facebook, Groupon and Twitter, this matter seems to be especially relevant. Recent investments have Facebook worth $52 billion and Twitter at $10 billion, while Groupon recently turned a $6 billion offer from Google.
But I ask you … on what are these values based. In the first two it’s their ability to act as an advertising platforms and Groupon is worth what it can take as a cut of the pie. Isn’t there more though … more than just money and advertising, more than just a vehicle to accommodate more and more consumption. God I hope so.
Let’s put Groupon aside, they are what they are – a group buying coupon service … nothing more, nothing less. Eventually they will fall prey to another ‘new and improved’ version of the same.
But Facebook and Twitter are different. To label then as just advertising platforms is to vastly understate what they really are – what they’re really worth. One needs to look no further back than one month. Only thirty days ago the political environment in the Middle East was much the same as it’s been for the last thirty years. No longer. Tunisia is liberated. Egypt is liberated. Libya will be in a matter a days, and whoever is next is anyone’s guess.
While Facebook and Twitter didn’t overthrow these dictatorships … they played an integral role. They facilitated strategic and tactical communication that was on the level of a sophisticated military sorte, only performed primarily by young civilians. These social networks provided something that wasn’t there before … coordination. The results to this point have been the liberation of tens of billions of dollars and ten millions of people, people who now have the prospect of governing themselves and having a say in their future.
What’s that worth?
How can you put a monetary value on person’s freedom? How can you say in dollars and cents what it’s worth to know you have something to get up for in the morning; to know that just maybe your children might just have a better life than you … a life you could only dream of.
Why does everything have to be based on money and what we spend it on. Just because you drive a Mercedes 450SL (and I drive a Ford Taurus) – does that make you worth more than me. I could make a case on the contrary. We focus so much on our children making sure they go to college and get a job that pays a lot of money. How many us even discuss any other options – any other means of worth? This valuation system seems Neanderthal in the light of what’s happening in the world these days.
I have been there and done it. I’ve had the nice car, the apartment on the water, the original art on walls. But it sure wasn’t “the be all end all.” The car’s gone, the apartment gone and the art … well, Blake, Brody and Sydney are enjoying it. The memories are good, but now it time to move on.
It’s like the pursuit of possessions had put me in a cloud. I had other pursuits, but the almighty dollar reigned supreme. No longer.
My valuation lies not in my financial net worth, but rather in what Greg says, “my conspicuous production” and what results from it. Production can be anything. It could this blog post. It could be the comments that result from it. And as I said in my comment above, it could be in the karma points I accumulate by doing good things. So here it is, here is my definition of “my value:”
My value is the sum total of all positive synaptic connections I have a role in creating, both in myself and in others. In other words, the more I can get people thinking in ways they wouldn’t otherwise think in – and correspondingly act in ways that benefit themselves and others … the more I’m worth.
There you have it.
Now it’s time to pick up my hands … my knuckles are bloody.
And if you like this … please Tweet it and follow me on Twitter @clayforsberg
During the mid 1800s Charles Darwin upended both the scientific and religious worlds by releasing his seminal theory on biological evolution. Darwinism states that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Since then Darwinism has been a foundational part of our world, science and elsewhere. However social behavior, specifically altruism, has posed a bit of problem for Darwin and his universal theory.
Every altruist has their own motives, of course – some are emotional, responding to fellow humans in desperate straits, while others are more rational, thinking about the kind of society they’d like to live in and acting accordingly. Does that imply a level of self-interest? Selfless acts often attract accusations of hidden selfishness, suggesting they’re not really altruistic at all. This wasn’t the problem for Darwinism. After all, humans have culture and religion and moral codes to live by – maybe our altruism was more to do with that than biology.
It was altruistic ants that posed a particular problem for Charles Darwin. Natural selection is often described as ‘survival of the fittest’, where fitness means how successful an individual is at reproducing. If one individual has a trait that gives them a fitness advantage, they will tend to have more offspring than the others; because the advantage is likely to be passed on to their offspring, that trait will then spread through the population. A fundamental part of this idea is that individuals are competing for the resources they need to reproduce, and fitness includes anything that helps an individual reproduce more than the competition.
But as Darwin observed, ants and other social insects are not in competition. They are cooperative, to the extent that worker ants are sterile and so have literally zero fitness. They ought to be extinct, yet there they are in every generation sacrificing their own reproductive ambitions to serve the fertile queen and her drones. Darwin suggested that competition between groups of ants – queen, drones and workers together – might be driving natural selection in this case. What was good for a nest competing against other nests would then outweigh what was good for any individual ant.
Group selection, as this idea was known, was not a very good solution, though. It didn’t explain how the cooperative behaviour evolved in the first place. The first altruistic ant would have been at such a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of its group that it would never have got the chance to breed more altruistic ants. The same was true of humans – natural selection was intrinsically stacked against any altruistic individual surviving long enough to pass on their altruism.(The Story of George Price)
This left a paradox: the evolution of altruism appeared to be impossible (under Darwin’s definition) … yet clearly altruism had evolved. If this couldn’t be resolved, what would it mean for the whole idea of natural selection?
Luckily, a young man called Bill Hamilton came to the rescue with a slightly different solution in 1964. He proposed that altruism could have evolved within family groups, whether genetically or through shared environmental habits and tendencies. An individual altruist would seem to be at a disadvantage, but that was not the whole picture because other individuals who shared the same genes associated with altruism would all influence each other’s “inclusive fitness.” We see this in human families also, as parents instinctively sacrifice themselves to protect their children, the upcoming generation. To not do this is considered socially malevolent.
Evolution and the Community
Hamilton’s extrapolation of Darwinism, while seemingly radical – made complete sense. By choosing to open the door to new thoughts on evolution – we’re not necessarily kicking Charles Darwin to curb, but expanding on his work based on new levels of research and observation. Consider it letting the theory of evolution evolve. Any scientific discovery should be looked at not an end – but rather the journey down a new road to another level of enlightenment.
The same should be said for social sciences and economic philosophy. We’re still relying on the theories and assumptions of Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes from the 19th century – with our politics following in lock-step. Why shouldn’t our thinking in this area evolve also. The societal conditions faced by the inhabitants of 1800s are nothing like that we face today in 2017. To assume the models developed then would wholly apply now is naive … if not just intellectually lazy.
“I believe that the community – in the fullest sense: a place and all its creatures – is the smallest unit of health and that to speak of the health of an isolated individual is a contradiction in terms.” – Wendell Berry
If we espouse Hamilton’s idea that evolution can occur in family units as well as in individuals – what’s saying we can’t take it a step further and extrapolate to that of the community unit. In fact, while technically ants socialize as a family, being from the same queen, they also (if not more) act as an active part of a community.
Recognizing that your community is an evolutionary ecosystem is fundamental to its prosperity and even survival.
If we view our community as an evolutionary unit, then we must look for and address the components that can either contribute to its sustainability or to its demise. A community is really nothing more than the accumulation of individuals and the interactions between these individuals. Every member of your community is unique and adds to its fabric. Everyone has something to offer and everyone should be heard – no matter their age or social standing. If they are not included int he conversation – they still will be heard and it may not be in a socially accepted way (e.g. crime). Prejudice, bigotry or even indifference hurts not only them, but us as part of the overall community. All of our actions, or lack there of – have collective consequences.
“In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” ~ IroquoisConfederacy
We must confront the societal questions that threaten the long-term sustainability of our communities – not just the immediate issues affecting the adult population . Far too often communities concern themselves only with protecting the status quo. This may not even be intentional. Informal power cliques that continue on by monopolizing public office and solidifying their positions of influence restrict the accension of new blood and new ideas in the community. For these civic leaders, they view the pain of changing greater than the pain of staying the same. Public policies, ideals and conventions are there to be preserved – often at all costs. New ideas meant to provide opportunity to new or young residents are resisted if not outright rejected … just because: “if it ain’t broken, then don’t fix it.” Unfortunately for those not in the top echelons of the ivory towers of power – it is broken. This needed new blood will either retreat into the shadows occupying a lower rung on caste system … or move somewhere else where opportunity is more available and their assets are welcome. Neither alternative is conducive to the prosperity and sustainability of the community.
Enter Darwinism! Those communities that embrace ideas from other diverse sources and talent with different experiences will evolve, sustain themselves and flourish. Those that “hold on to yesterday” will whither away. These communities and their residents will suffer from isolation, and lack of economic and social opportunities as they put forth precious time and resources resisting rather than embracing. By the time the pain of staying the same becomes more than that of changing … it may well be too late for them.
However hard it may seem for community leaders, they need to be willing to loosen their grip on power and traditional structure. They need to realize that what they invest in the outliers of power and influence today will be the capital that builds the future of the their communities in the future. Without this investment – the homes, businesses and everything else they’re trying to hold on to will be yet another example of the dark side of evolution … decline and eventual extinction.
We still need structure, but that structure needs to be flexible … and directly participatory. Our current form of local representative governance is seldom more than an ego-driven career path for the few. We need a structure that is more a platform; one of inclusion and participation. This platform must be designed to identify the needs and opportunities of the local community it serves while addressing them using whatever resources are available … whether monetary or not. Think of this “resource maximization” drawing from the times of our grandparents when neighbors and community members were treated as extended family and relied on as the primary “safety net.” This was a time when no one had the luxury of sitting by idly expecting a city council (who meets once a week) to act on their best interest – assuming they even took the time or had the ability to learn what those interests were.
Biologists say trees are social beings. They can count learn and remember. They nurse sick members, warn each other of dangers by sending electrical signals across a fungal network and for reasons unknown, keep the ancient stumps of long felled companions alive for centuries by feeding them a sugar solution through roots. (Marije van Zomeren)
To find a model for organizational structure built around resource maximization and decentralized civic participation and collaboration, we need to look no further than our backyard – in nature. One of nature’s most effective means of sustainability is the Rhizome. The Rhizome is a modified subterranean stem of a plant that is usually found underground, often sending out roots and shoots from its nodes. Rhizomes develop from axillary buds and grow perpendicular to the force of gravity – retaining the ability to allow new shoots to grow upwards. If a Rhizome is separated into pieces, each piece may be able to give rise to a new plant … and a new node of above ground activity.
A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles … the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature; it brings into play very different regimes of signs, and even non-sign states … The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots. A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between things, interbeing, intermezzo. (A Thousand Plateaus)
This phenomena of decentralized activity in Rhizomes was best articulated in the philosophy or Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the ’60s. Rather than using the organizational structure of the root-tree system which charts along chronological lines and looks for the single origin of “things” looking towards conclusion of those “things” – a Rhizome continually establishes connections between threads of meaningful communication, organizations of power, and other influences (including arts, sciences and social struggles). The planar movement of the Rhizome resists chronology and formal organization, instead favoring a Nomadic system of growth and proliferation. In this model, influence and application spreads like the surface of a body of water, spreading towards available spaces or in the application of community – maximizing the resources available to it, regardless of the type. This is a perfect alternative to the governmental morass of dysfunction we’re currently immersed in.
At the foundation of this evolved, altrusitically-based society are its Front Porches – physical hubs of civic gathering and serendipitous engagement. The goal is to take the principles of resource maximization and provide the conduit to incorporate them with the naturalistic examples of the Rhizome organization articulated by Deleuze and Guattari. This result is a platform or space for community engagement and sustainability built around informal but operationally significant gatherings, otherwise know as Front Porches. While these Front Porches can form anywhere, say even in your garage, the ideal locations will be in the locally owned businesses of our communities.
Rather than myopically obsess on economic growth as almost all civic governments do, a Front Porch network will focus on destroying the silos that retard our communities’ evolution while improving its inhabitants physical, cerebral (avenues to self-actualization) and spiritual health. People will gravitate towards what they want to do … and in turn do what they do best. This lifestyle of self-management of interests and activities will not only benefit them, but also their community. Lives based on economic status will be replaced by those of self-actualization, self-efficacy and well-being. Civic participation and altruism will elevate them and empower them to evolve as humans – individually and collectively.
It will be the priority of these Front Porches to create environments in our communities that nurture hope by empowering avenues for us to engage with our world and express our creativity through a Solutionistmindset – letting the inherent benevolence inside us bloom. By making “helping others” our societal norm and expectation … we will supplant that of the hopeless climb up the ladder of our current economic caste system; countering the tribalism and jingoism that has reared recently shown itself to be in vogue.
Evolution through Diversity-Driven Serendipity
Rather than abide by a top-down governance model run by those embedded in the status quo (often of sustained mediocrity) – we must create platforms of serendipity where civic matchmaking happens organically through interaction uncovering commonalities between the participants. Think of a synergistic mixing bowl of opportunity; indirect, organic relationship building.
What if we designed our communities around the idea of maximizing engagement from those in the streets? The more engaged our residents are … the more empowered they would be. They would feel more in control of their health and their futures. Imagine if a chance to engage, whether it was physical, mental or social was just around the corner. What if our physical security and well-being was not dependent on government assistance or the whims of a fickle market driven economy. What if our neighborhood was our safety net, a safety net that knew best in our time of need. What if the streets of our community became melting pots of diversity-driven serendipity – places where curiosity was bred. What if engagement, well-being and self-efficacy was how a community measured itself, not obtuse economic activity too often distorted through the one-dimensional filter of irrelevant statistics. And what if getting up in the morning was a chance to nurture our hope … and engage with others to help them do the same.
Breaking Free of the Pendulum
It’s easy to just bash our present political economic situation and run the other way, ready to embrace the polar opposite. We saw this with the election of Donald Trump. Anything was better than Hillary Clinton and the establishment, however bad that might have been or not. We see it in economics with the pushback against neo-liberalism … for good reason. But does the answer lie on the other end of the pendulum and minimum basic income? Does it lie free college education for everyone, even though it’s becoming more apparent traditional college may not be the best alternative for many?
We need to be brave and think differently, not just vacillate between Smith and Hobbes or Marx. Not that those and other icons of the past don’t have positive offerings to contribute. But they don’t live today. Society changes, as does the economic conditions and requirements that forms it. And with that, so must our ways of looking at the best way to patch together a workable societal strategy for all. We need to grab from the past, morph together solutions … and try them out. Not all will work. But some parts of some of them will. And then we take those and combine them together with new ideas – all specific to our individual locales often brought to the forefront by our newly embraced outliers. Jeff Bezos from Amazon calls this Day 1. Everything is always in beta – always in search of improvement. Always evolving. Never focusing on maintaining the status quo.
Bill Hamilton showed us how we need to accept alternative ways of looking at our world; even down to the most basic level – Darwin’s theory of evolution. I propose we take it further to the community. We don’t live in silos. While genetics play a vital role in ability to sustain ourselves individually and collectively … so do the interactions with those we share a physical space with. Any efforts to nurture empathetic and altruistic behavior is evolutionary beneficial.
It’s not enough to wait for a societal evolution to take place and expect other to generate the change we need. We can’t expect to sit back and reap the benefits from it after-the-fact. We need to all need to be our own local Bill Hamiltons, think differently … and usher in these evolutionary changes ourselves. We must look at our responsibility as being more than a periodic trip to the voting booth only to perpetuate yet another ineffective version of status quo.
…because we have reached a time when “the pain of staying the same has become greater than the pain of changing.”
This is one of those “don’t forget this … and share far and wide.”
A few years back I was traveling on Amtrak from Orange County to Seattle to visit Jennifer (you’ll hear more about her down the road). Trains are great … way better than planes and cars. You get to spend hours together with people you’ve never met and probably will never see again. All you have is that single experience.
At the beginning of the trip, I met and sat next to a young man who happened to be a Buddhist. Now he didn’t look like the stereotypical Buddhist; no shaved head, no robe … just kinda look like I looked twenty-five years ago (except probably better looking). For miles we talked, ate and talked some more.
Note: Coincidentally, I did meet two “typically looking Buddhists” the next morning a few hundred miles up the road after being left a train station; That’s different story for different day.
One of topics of our conversation was his girlfriend – who lived with him on a Buddhist compound outside of San Diego. Over the last couple of months their relationship had declined. She would come home from work in a surely mood and stayed that way through the night. “What was wrong and what had he done to cause her malaise.”
“What can I do to make you happy,” was the pretty much how every evening began.
At wits end, my new Buddhist friend went to his monk for advise.
This is it:
“How can you be so arrogant and self-absorbed that you think everything in her life revolves around you and is caused by you.”
The next time you beat yourself up over something having to do with somebody else, try empathizing – look at the world from their perspective.
Believe it or not – it may not be about you.
If you like this … please Tweet it and follow me on Twitter @clayforsberg
About twenty years ago, my daughter Alex and I were living in Marin County above San Francisco. During this time I became addicted to reading. I don’t know if I was trying to make up for lost time or what; but a pile of five books (all in various stages of completion) became a permanent fixture on my dining room table. At least once week, and more often more than that, I made the trek to my local independent bookstore in Corte Madera down the road to see if there were any new current event titles I could add to my menu of cerebral digestion. Normally a book stayed a couple of weeks until I was done with it – only to make way for another to take its place. There was one book however that stuck around a lot longer. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael Hart written in 1992.
Hart’s book was fascinating to me. Since I was in grade school, I’ve been a history buff – even reading the entire encyclopedia sitting on the living room floor when sub-zero temperatures and three-foot snow banks put a damper on outdoor activities (obviously it was a pre-video game era). What intrigued me about “The 100” was that Hart didn’t pass value judgement on whether the influence the person had was good or bad – just that the person had influence. Jesus and Sir Issac Newton figured prominently, but Hitler and Genghis Khan were also ranked. He also went into copious detail on why he ranked them where he did. A lot of the reasons weren’t obvious, but once brought to light – made complete sense. George Washington for example, was ranked in the top 40 not because he was the first president of the United States, but rather because he chose to voluntarily relinquish his office after only two terms, setting a precedent that would remain intact until Franklin Roosevelt 150 years later.
Being immersed in the printing industry as a headhunter, I loved the fact that Johann Gutenberg and his printing press made the Top Ten. But the one person that took me by surprise was the one Hart ranked as Number 10 overall. That was Euclid. I didn’t know who Euclid was – even with my encyclopedias and three-foot snow banks.
Euclid and Alexandria
Now for those of you who are as uninformed as I was, Euclid is known almost solely for writing the math text, Elements.
Euclid (fl. 300 BCE) was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the “father of geometry”. He was active in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy I (323–283 BCE). His Elements is one of the most influential works in the history of mathematics, serving as the main textbook for teaching mathematics (especially geometry) from the time of its publication until the late 19th or early 20th century.
But the most interesting part about Euclid was that Elements wasn’t really that much of an original text. He didn’t make any groundbreaking revelations like Newton or Copernicus. He pretty much just took the works of other scholars, many of which lived and worked in Alexandria, and synthesized into one book a comprehensive guide to geometry. In summary – Euclid was a curator; and a prolific enough of a curator that Michael Hart had him ranked Number 10 in the list of the most influential persons of history. Holding a curator in such high regard, especially at that time in history where personal contact was really the main way to spread knowledge – brings up an interesting point. Euclid was a product of his geography and those who resident in his civic proximity. Euclid embodied the very essence the of Alexandria, Egypt … the diverse cross-pollinated intellectual melting pot of the world. Rather than beset by religious and societal division, it was a bastion of inclusion and open thought. Thinkers worldwide traveled from afar to participate in the collectivism.
In January of 1989, my wife Mitra and I found out she was pregnant. I vividly remember the discussion of names. Before we knew the baby’s gender, we picked both a boy’s and girl’s name. We didn’t necessarily agree on the boy’s name (which I don’t even remember). The girl’s name was a different story. The decision on Alexandria came quick as our first pick, even though our reasons were different. Mitra liked the name itself (as did I). But I really liked what it stood for. It’s hard to set the bar much higher for your child than being named after arguably the most prolific center of learning in the history of the world. If some of that rubbed off on her … all the better.
On October 11, 1989 in Burbank, California – Alexandria Noelle Forsberg was born.
Two years ago, as part of my series on community-based societal evolution, I wrote “Silos.”“Silos” outlines the need for communities to rise above their provincial jingoism in order for them to truly pursue sustainable policies. Cross-pollination; whether its gender, sexual-preference, ethnic, racial, age-based or especially geographic – must be fundamentally encoded in a community’s civic DNA. All to often however, especially where I live, the opposite is often preferred. How far back your Montana roots go back somehow makes you a better person – not more geographically myopic which is actually the case.
Community and the Value of Diversity
Everyday the environment we live in changes. These changes are a response to external stimuli. Darwin’s theory of evolution states that the flourishing and ultimately the survival of a species (or any other anthropological entity) is based on its ability to adapt to stimuli. Diversity is an advantage if not a necessity. Lack of diversity makes itself open to disease (literally and figuratively).
My daughter Alexandria breeds exotic snakes, specifically Rainbow Boas. She goes to extreme lengths to make sure the gene pool of her breeding stock is as diverse as possible. It may be a lot easier and less expensive to acquire stock domestically – but due to inbreeding (often unintentional) by less diligent breeders, genetically based pathologies often occur. To counter this, Alex has imported snakes outside the genetic pool from Finland and Great Britain. It’s much more difficult and more expensive – but it’s her only option with the bar she’s set for herself and her projects.
Your community really isn’t a lot different from Alex’s Rainbow Boa community (aside from the preponderance of scales). Any community is the product of its residents. Social inbreeding creates weak species and weak communities; vulnerable to adversaries, internally and externally. Inbred societies rely on decision-making and responses founded in a narrow historical perspective – severely limiting its response to challenges and opportunities.
The fact is that if you want to build teams or organizations capable of innovating, you need diversity. Diversity enhances creativity. It encourages the search for novel information and perspectives, leading to better decision-making and problem solving. Diversity can lead to unfettered discoveries and breakthrough innovations. Even simply being exposed to diversity can change the way you think. This is not just wishful thinking: it is the conclusion I draw from decades of research from organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers. Scientific America
A community is the collective sum of the value of its individual inhabitants multiplied by the community’s ability to synergize these individual parts (by curating organized and random encounters). Every encounter or engagement has an opportunity to be a synergistic one. Empathetic cross-pollinated engagements are the key. The city of Alexandria during the time of Euclid was a perfect example of this. Even though there were organized discussions and forums, just walking down the street could lead to a serendipitous encounter that might result in a groundbreaking discovery.
Every member of your community is unique and adds to its fabric. Everyone has something to offer and everyone should be heard – no matter their age or social standing. It’s up to us to find it and help them see it. The more expressively diverse a community is, the more resilient it is and more potential it has to invoke change – both inside and outside its walls. Our focus must actively be on inclusion, not retreat into personal protectionism and paranoia of those different from us. We must resist the temptation of the comfort of “sameness.” Nothing happens in our comfort zones. If we don’t venture into the land of wonder … we’ll never see, let alone realize the possibilities life avails to us.
Designing for Serendipity, Synergy and Collaboration
Cross-pollination doesn’t happen easily though. People of different fabric may inhabit the same locale, but that doesn’t mean their views and ideas will synthesize and your community will be built on Alexandria-type collaborations. You have to reach out and try to understand these people not like you. You first need to empathize with them. The most effective way to do that is through shared actions – specifically shared community-beneficial actions. For example, building a school playground with your neighbors of different ideologies can bridge chasms that would otherwise be uncrossable. It’s amazing what work for the common good can do. This is what happens in disaster relief efforts. I doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or a Democratic, everyone bands together to help rebuild the town they all live in. We just have to not rely on disasters to bring us together. Community commonalities are everywhere. We just have work to create opportunities for everyone to share in them.
From these opportunities and resultant actions will come serendipitous relationships; relationships that create synergies that move your community ahead in ways no one envisioned. That being said, we have to design environments; physical, social and personal so that these opportunities, actions and relationships become baked into our society. In business applications we strive for economies of scale. These efficiencies are mainly mapped on vertically axis or are niche based. Building for serendipity takes community economies of scale and expands their opportunity on the horizontal axis across defined multiple niches and focuses. This solution thinking stemming from diverse thought breaks through conventional siloed vertical constraints.
Imagine if your community had a Department of Horizontal Integration, where its primary role is to break apart the silos of the status quo power structures and connect dots from the pieces. This department wouldn’t need to be housed in the government. In fact it would be best if it wasn’t – for obvious hierarchical reasons. It could rely on your community’s true assets; its people and where they congregate, the Front Porches of the small business network.
Rather than abide by a top-down governance model run by those embedded in the status quo of mediocrity – we must create a platform of serendipity where matchmaking happens organically through interaction uncovering commonalities between the participants. Think of a synergistic mixing bowl of opportunity; obliquitous, indirect, organic relationship building.
Now imagine organizing set gatherings where this serendipity is on the menu. While there’s no guarantee your group will change the world – increasing that chance through proximity of diverse thought and motivation sure increases its chance. And what if the overarching goal of your gatherings was to improve the human condition in your community. How this is accomplished would be determined by those in the room not by a top-down bureaucracy mired in inefficiency and out-dated procedures. Everyone is here for the same reason and they are here because they WANT to be … not have to be because of an overriding need to fuel ego and status.
For arguments sake let’s call your gathering, Serendipity. Serendipity could be a petri dish for how to solve civic and social problems directly rather than through government. It would be the platform for inclusion and experimental benevolence. The bar would be set so that no area of community need would be untouched. If something needed to be fixed, or something needed to be done – there would be no questions and no siloed jurisdictional squabbles … it would just happen.
In 1986, John Gage, then of Sun Microsytems, organized NetDay in California. NetDay was historic grassroots effort in the classic American barn-raising tradition. Using volunteer labor, their goal was to install all the basic wiring needed to make five classrooms and a library or a computer lab in every school Internet-ready. If the same work was financed by taxpayers, it would cost more than $1,000 per classroom. Volunteers from businesses, education, and the community acquired all of the equipment and installed and tested it at each school site. As a result 20,000 volunteers helped to wire 20 percent of California schools to the Internet. In addition, by bringing together these diverse elements, NetDay established a framework for lasting partnerships among business, government, educational institutions, and local communities provide ongoing support for the schools to this day.
What if we designed our communities around the idea of maximizing engagement from those in the streets? The more engaged our residents are … the more empowered they would be. They would feel more in control of their health and their futures. Imagine if a chance to engage, whether it was physical, mental or social was just around the corner. What if our physical security and well-being was not dependent on government assistance or the whims of a fickle market driven economy.
What if our neighborhood was our safety net, a safety net that knew best in our time of need. What if the streets of our community became melting pots of diversity-driven serendipity – places where curiosity was bred. What if engagement, well-being and self-efficacy was how a community measured itself, not obtuse economic activity often distorted through the one-dimensional filter of irrelevant statistics. And what if getting up in the morning was a chance to nurture our hope … and engage with others to help them do the same.
Building Your Own Alexandria
It’s obvious the human species must evolve. The ascent of Donald Trump to the forefront of our attention has presented us with some hard facts. We all have to take look in the mirror and ask ourselves how we got here. We will have to change our thinking – or maybe just start thinking. Instead of relying on past expectations, and cultural assumptions and metrics as our guides — we have to envision what could be … not just what always has been and try to bring it back to life.
But vision is only part of the journey. We have to look past how things in past have been done. No longer should government and traditional institutions be looked at as the first line defense … rather should be looked at only as a last resort. Our reaction should be to assemble our friends and neighbors at our local Front Porch, organize and do what has to be done — developing self-efficacy, individually and collectively along the way. And we best accomplish that by inclusion and reaching out to those around us who normally we may feel uncomfortable doing so. These outliers of our social circles may be the exact people who ensure the our very survival.
We can make the change we need — but it won’t be by thinking the way we’ve always thought and doing what we’ve always done — the way it’s always been done.
If you’re interested in moving on from the status quo and helping me build a new civic alternative … please check out Community 3.0, my vision of an evolved society where self-efficacy and well-being is priority. Or even better email me, at firstname.lastname@example.org and we can set up time to have a conversation.
“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.” ~ Walt Whitman
Society has a problem with silos. I don’t mean the ones that farmers put grain or corn in. I mean metaphorical silos. Whether it’s a neighborhood, town or city; we seem to look at them as being a separate entity – much like an enclosed silo. We consider a nation being enclosed by its borders. We assume they ebb and flow, making decisions on their own volition. But really aren’t they just a collection of relationships … relationships dictated by individual people interacting with each other? And a single interaction between the right (or wrong) two people can alter the entire dynamics of what is enclosed within their ‘silo.’
In more extreme cases one of these interactions can change the direction of decision-making (or policy) for an entire nation. We saw this in the Middle East and world’s conflict with ISIL. The murder of one young American girl tipped the scales so much that a intractably divided United States Congress united in near unanimous agreement to allow the President to send ground new troops to Iraq and Syria. And how can we forget how World War I started. The assassination of a seemingly nondescript duke in Austria set off a cascade of unprecedented military action by intertwined alliances.
With the wellbeing of our communities being dependent on individual relationships and the events that stem from them, isn’t it tantamount that we discuss ways to establish positive and productive dynamics in the neighborhoods that make up our communities? Shouldn’t we care about how the people of our communities interact and communicate. Even the most seemingly benign remark and response could set off a ‘butterfly effect’ of unintended consequences no one can foresee. While we can’t mediate everything that happens in our community, we need not to. We need only to provide a platform or ‘space’ that encourages interactions that are as fruitful and as synergic as possible. Then maybe we can maximize our resources and realize our potential rather than constantly mitigating the damages from antagonistic interactions … or worse yet ignoring them and let them metastasize.
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view – until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” Atticus Finch ‘To Kill a Mockingbird”
At the heart of any relationship is communication, and at the heart of any communication is an understanding of the other person, or empathy. Empathy is being able to remove yourself from your own perspective and ‘walk in their shoes’ or ‘see the world through their eyes’ (the metaphors are endless). This isn’t easy though. It’s easier just to step up on your soapbox and preach, letting ideology take over – however well intended.
Empathy isn’t sympathy though. I view the road to empathy as sharing another’s experience. It’s not enough to look at the world on ‘the other side of the tracks,’ you actually have to take that risk, step across and look at the world from that other side.
The phenomenon of ‘Shared Experiences’
Congressman Patrick Murphy of Massachusetts made headlines a couple of years ago when he slept on the streets of Boston one night to see what it was like be homeless firsthand. This is what I call a‘shared experience.’He was living homeless, if it was for just a day. And I’m sure it’s an experience that will never leave him and hopefully will alter his public policy views and actions accordingly.
However noble Murphy’s effort was, he still wasn’t homeless though. He knew he had a place to go after that night in the cold. He knew the hunger he felt would pass as soon as he wanted it to. The effort he had to make to be sure he found a safe place to close his eyes (relatively speaking), didn’t have to be repeated the next night.
“The greatest good you can do for another is not just share your riches, but to reveal to him his own.” ~ Benjamin Disraeli
Every member of our communities is unique and adds to the fabric of the community. Everyone has something to offer and everyone should be heard – no matter their age or social standing. It’s up to us as individuals, as a community and as a society to find that something and help them see it. Because not only does it benefit them … it benefits all of us.
Empathy can be taken to the next level when one multiplies these ‘shared experiences’ and joins someone in their world for a longer period of time. An ‘experience world’ is not spending a night with a homeless person, it’s being homeless. It’s sharing their world to the point that it’s not their world … but your world also.
Ten years ago I went on what I call my Nomad journey. In reality, I was homeless for three years – two of which was with my daughter, Alex, as she finished high school in Southern California. Some of the time we spent in motels, and some of it was in a tent – a good tent, but a tent nonetheless. My recruiting company collapsed, a combination of the economy, changes in my niche (printing), and probably as much as much anything – just being burned out after fifteen years of wrangling with my product – people.
Without going into copious detail about the peaks and valleys of a life unsettled and uncertain, I do want to share my experience at Cottonwood. After Alex finished school and moved to Washington (to work for Apple), I camped exclusively. The last campground I lived at was Cottonwood, about two hours north of Los Angeles. My car had broken down, so I hitched along with a couple who was also on a Nomad journey. After landing in Cottonwood, they left after about a week to venture to New Orleans. I stayed, carless (not careless) about ten miles from civilization except for my fellow Nomads scattered throughout the campground.
Ironically, Cottonwood turned out to be a community as close-knit as any I had ever lived in. J.W., a grizzled old cowboy who had done a stint in San Quentin, became my site mate and eventually my tent mate (after Jake his Border Collie had a run-in with a skunk he decided to share with J.W. – in his tent).
But J.W. was just one member of my community. There was Kenny, a thirty year-old just out of rehab. And there were others of all sorts. They were all my neighbors and my friends. We trusted each other and looked out for each other. We shared stories each night dinner. And most of all we shared dreams. None of us believed we be living the Nomad lifestyle forever.
After a month and half, Kenny, J.W. and myself ended up leaving Cottonwood to set up and manage a new KOA Campground an hour down the road. A couple of years later I found out a couple of our compadres from Cottonwood had passed away. We reflected on the times we all shared. Cottonwood was no different from in any other community. You always lose a few people who we have shared worlds with.
No one at Cottonwood was remotely like me or had previous experiences like I had; living in Newport Beach, on the water in the Bay Area or a in downtown high-rise in Minneapolis. Nor had I had experiences like them. But that didn’t matter. In fact it made it better, and my life was enriched from my time there and with them. Every member of our community was unique and added to the fabric of our Cottonwood world.
Rebuilding the ‘Middle Ring’ using ‘Shared Experiences’
This concept of sharing ‘experience worlds’ only seems logical if we want re-build the ‘Middle Ring’ relationships we need as the foundation of our neighborhoods and communities. We need to use ‘shared experiences’ to rebuild our communities for the benefit of not only of us today, but also for the others who will join us later. Even if these ‘shared experiences’ are as brief as the neighborhood picnics I grew up with in Green Valley in Minot, North Dakota – or as long as the one I had at Cottonwood, they provide us that valuable opportunity for connection with those we’d not likely to connect with otherwise.
Left to their own volition many people will associate only with others like them (including age), not taking that chance to step outside their comfort zone. But if we won’t make this step on our own, how can we truly acquire the empathy and the trust needed to have constructive conversations, the conversations required to build the relationships necessary to create the consensus and collaborations needed for the neighborhoods and communities that serve all its residents?
So how can we create the opportunities for our community members that will result in ‘shared experiences’ and even delving into others ‘worlds?’ If we truly want to create sustainable inclusive communities, that should be what we ask ourselves.
And it shouldn’t have be as drastic as spending six weeks together in the dirt in a tent.
If you haven’t, I invite you to start by delving into my ideas by reading the series, “On the Road to Your Community’s Perfect World,” This is my articulation of how we can create better, more inclusive, unique communities as the solution to our society’s pressing issues. Consider each week’s post a Mile Marker (MM), a cerebral off-ramp from the highway of your daily routine, taking a you little further down this road to a better version of society.