Mindfulness for positive development

It has been a while between posts. I have been busy with the end of year rush. This article by Weh Yeoh really brought it back for me. I have been practicing mindfulness for years but seem to still get caught up in the everyday chaos of life. The skills that mindfulness give you though is to be more aware of each action, each thought, each gesture right in that given moment which for me is the cornerstone of truly living. Through improving mindfulness and fostering compassion it is a powerful combination for positive human development.

http://www.whydev.org/why-mindfulness-is-essential-for-development-workers

The National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper - a response

The principles underpinning an Australian cultural policy should not be limited to the Australian context, but extend to inform and support effective international aid and development programs. More specifically the recently released National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper[1] states that the proposed policy ‘be based on an understanding that a creative nation produces a more inclusive society and a more expressive and confident citizenry by encouraging our ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences – with each other and with the world.’ In this paper it is argued that the extension of these principles to Australia’s International Aid Program is a legal, moral and utilitarian imperative in the nation’s best interest. The ways in which this can be achieved is to engage creatively through shared values within trusting frameworks, using common tools and by collective learning. 

Domestic Cultural Policy and International Aid and Development Programs

Australia has a rich history of indigenous and non-indigenous artistic and cultural traditions. It was only in the early 1990s the notion of a ‘cultural policy’, as opposed to an ‘arts policy’ became a key part of the national political discourse for the first time.[2]  With the launch of Creative Nation in 1994 it set up a ten year framework within which different levels of government as well as cultural and artistic practitioners could relate and work toward a common cultural development paradigm. Culture defined in Creative Nation is ‘to say that we share ideas, values, sentiments and traditions, and that we see in all the various manifestations of these what it means to be Australian … [Culture] is the name we go by, the house in which we live. Culture is that which gives us a sense of ourselves.’[3] Hawkes goes one step further in stating ‘culture is not the decoration added after a society has dealt with its basic needs. Culture is the basic need – it is the bedrock of society’.[4]

The spirit of Creative Nation, being Australia’s first and only federal cultural policy, is now being continued by the Gillard government in the forming of a new National Cultural Policy. The discussion paper currently open for public comment takes into account a number of sector themes and interests. The overarching objective of the  National Cultural Policy will be to reflect the important role the arts and creativity play in the daily lives of Australians, and will help integrate arts and cultural policy within our broader social and economic goals.[5] This objective I believe should extend not only to the daily lives of Australians but to those of our global brothers and sisters.

In relation to International Aid and Development Programs, at the 2007 Federal elections the Australian Government committed to increase the Official Development Assistance (ODA) to a Gross National Income (GNI) ratio from 0.34% in 2009-10 to 0.5% by 2015-16. In 2011-2012 the Australian Government plans to spend almost $4.8 billion on development assistance. This is an estimated 0.35% of Gross National Income for the year.[6]

With this increasing aid budget the Federal Government is actively seeking partnerships and best practice examples from the Australian context. Areas that have been identified already are climate change mitigation, dry land agriculture and water resource management. [7] Underpinning the current approach is not an engagement on common principles but on exporting expertise and Australian culture into similar contexts. Below I argue that this approach is not morally, legally or in the nation’s best interests. Further, I present more suitable alternatives.

Cultural Policy looking out from a place within

In the National Cultural Discussion paper it states:

‘The policy will be based on an understanding that a creative nation produces a more inclusive society and a more expressive and confident citizenry by encouraging our ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences – with each other and with the world.’[8] 

The Discussion Paper however as it stands is largely inward looking. It is upon the above paragraph that I wish to expand in this essay upon how the National Cultural Policy should start to look outward in informing our International Aid and Development Programs.

Exploring Common Values on a Creative Nations Playing Field

Looking out it is important to engage within frameworks and across common cultural values that we all hold. Some maintain that there are no universal human values, however the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights[9] and a more recent study by some of the largest global NGOs maintain we do hold in some common global human values,[10] and these should be explored in our aspirations to achieve greater global solidarity and peace.

Being creative is intrinsic to human life. As and Ewe proverb says; ‘Life is like an anthill, it is built from within out.’[11] The Ewe also believe as do many scholars that creativity is a fundamental component of human existence. Thompson goes on further to say that ‘creativity, is not only basic to human nature, but is woven into the very fabric of society’[12], that it is part of our cultural DNA. This would be true as for Melbourne as it would be for the tribal community of the Ewe. Therefore to engage in a creative process is to engage globally on an even and deeply rich playing field through exploring common values. Such an approach is in stark contrast to current global relationships dominated by finance and weapons.

Inclusive societies and a more expressive and confident global citizenry

As is stated in the UN Declaration;  ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’[13]  Therefore, we are bound not just by moral obligation to be inclusive but also through international law.[14] We are also bound by our national interests in this ever increasing multi-polar  and volatile world. A recent study by Trocaire has shown that for countries to achieve social and physical well-being they must start to engage more even handedly across the globe. With the emergence of the BRIICs (Brazil, India, Indonesia & China) as the new powerhouses of development countries will survive more on their relationships as a good global citizen rather than its traditional ties and trading partners.[15]

Aid in general and the Australian aid Program in particular has had  a history of exporting solutions. This has resulted in aid dependency syndrome and a breakdown in confidence amongst developing communities.[16] As Robert Zoellick, World Bank President said in a recent speech; ‘They don't want handouts, they don't want policy prescriptions, they certainly don't want lectures from visiting dignitaries.’[17]  What many want is to be included in defining their own future based on individual reflection and collective dialogue. This requires even power balances which a trusting creative process allows. It also requires confidence by individuals and communities to engage meaningfully. Confidence within a trusting framework in which opportunity to engage is provided are key components of any successful development initiative.[18] These aspects together with an ability to reflect and learn is what I wish now to explore in bridging the gap between the National Cultural Policy and International Aid and Development programs.

The ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences

Previous domestic cultural development and International development programs could be best described as a ‘democratisation’ of culture. A process aimed at engaging individuals from excluded groups in historically privileged cultural arenas.[19] Unfortunately in international development common terminology of ‘knowledge transfer’ and ‘sensitisation’ still prevail. What is offered here as an alternative to prescriptive solutions is an approach that enables an exploration of common solutions within a broad framework. Owen  presents us with the idea that we should see design of policy and development programs like natural selection[20]. That is we try different types of approaches based on previous experiences, see which one is best suited based on application in a context, create different versions of that approach and apply again and so on. This approach would allow individuals and communities to provide policy input and design alterations as they experience what works. Such an experiential process would not require deep analysis but a simple understanding of what is working and what is not. The Presencing Institute provides us with another alternative through Theory U. Theory U ‘suggests that the way in which we attend to a situation determines how a situation unfolds: I attend this way, therefore it emerges that way. As a practical social technology, Theory U offers a set of principles and practices for collectively creating the future that wants to emerge (following the movements of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving).’[21] More familiar to the Community Cultural Development discourse is the concept and practice of Cultural Democracy. Cultural Democracy emphasises people’s rights to public space and the public sector as domains of democratic expression.[22] That is instead of deciding what is good for a community, space is provided in which individuals and communities can explore common solutions  in pursuit of self actualisation. It is a process whereby cultural practice informs policy not whereby policy informs culture. Whether it be experiential (as in Owen’s example), presencing (as in Theory U) or buy providing space for cultural democracy they all have the same aim; that the National Cultural Policy and International Aid Programs be formed through an ongoing process of dialogue both within Australia and with our global brothers and sisters.

To engage both within Australia and beyond we need common tools in which to do so. These tools are numerous, however in this paper I wish to explore Information Communication Technology tools, more specifically the mobile phone. There are now more that 5 billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world, expanding at a rate of about 10% per year in the developing world. Subscriptions in Africa rose from 23 million to almost 350 million between 2002 and 2008, the quickest growth in the world.[23] Of note is that 2 out of every 3 new mobile subscribers are women.[24] The Swiss Agency for Development note that through mobile phones even the very poor and marginalized people have access to a personalized channel to the outside word breaking the longstanding monopoly of the male household head to information.[25] In Australia in 2011 there are approximately 28million mobile phone subscriptions, more than the Australian population.[26]  Mobile phone technology is being increasingly used to engage individuals and communities to inform Government policy and development programs. The reasons for this are; cost and time effectiveness (40% cheaper than face to face community dialogue), it is real time and more accurate (allowing for rapid input and analysis to specific issues), can reach more people, is gender sensitive and anonymous.[27] The potential creative engagement uses are also high as bandwidth and data limits expand. Using Mobiles to send photo, film and voice recording will collapse even more barriers between community and decision makers of policy and development programs over time. The use of mobile phones can therefore be vital not just in allowing individuals and communities across the globe to engage within common cultural frameworks but it will also allow for creative expression as a method in which to do so.

Collective engagement and common tools are not the only components needed, shared cultural learning will also be vital to inform domestic cultural policy and international aid and development programs.  Tocaire note that within the next 20 years most of the world’s poorest people will be found in some of the richest countries.[28] With immigration and a widening social divide Australia could very much be one of these countries. Therefore the principles in which we engage culturally in Australia, and the solutions we find may be shared with very similar global contexts if called to do so. Australia could potentially become a global cultural think tank for sharing the principles and frameworks through which we approach and solve issues. Australia would be better placed to do this as we have a relatively small population and are not facing the same demographic and historical pressures as countries like France or the United Kingdom. 

Conclusion – with each other and the world

An Australian cultural policy will define not only what it is and how it is to be Australian, but should also include our commonalities with global humanity. The need to do this will be increasingly so as contexts shift and new cultural relationships develop. Within the next twenty years the idea of ‘us and them’ will become even more blurred. It is important not only from moral or legal reasons that we engage on cultural principles with the global community but also as a matter for the nation’s best interest. The way to do this is not to export cultural solutions that has previously been the approach in our international aid and development programs. We must however engage under broad frameworks that allow for movements of co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving. We now have the tools in which to do so in mobile phone technology  that allows not only communication but creative process. This done with a collective approach to learning both home and abroad will only increase cultural resilience to the ever increasing shocks of the multi-polar world. It is for these reasons that the National Cultural Policy must not only be limited to looking inward at the Australia cultural context but look outward and participate in the broader global collective.  

Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story | Video on TED.com

Chimamanda Adichie: The danger of a single story Video on TED.com

Check out this amaizing TED talk from Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie. Truly inspiring and gets to the heart of how change must occur to achieve international solidarity. It starts with a single story but ends in a multitude of possibilities!

We all want to live, not just survive

It is a sacrifice I hear my friends and family say. It is a calling I hear my colleagues say. But as the saying goes ‘we all just want to get paid’. What drives us in our personal and professional lives changes constantly. But let us firstly deal with one constant, survival.

We work to put food on the table, clothes on our children’s backs, a roof over our heads. In Australia one would argue that you don’t have to do this, there is social support and unemployment benefits. But in most other countries around the globe there is no such thing as unemployment benefits. Social support means family and friends. I have to admit that when visiting my in-laws in Tanzania I can feel that social support from them, but I also feel that responsibility. This is a good thing. It brings us closer.

The responsibility does not just extend to my family but to the broader society. In African households there are a few key breadwinners and many of those look after a large ‘family’. In Kenya during the Global Financial Crisis, when many of my friends who were key bread winners lost their jobs, violence increased. This, my friends tell me, was because they could not support many of the most desperate family members. They tell me that they know the perpetrators of violence in their families and they work hard to get money to them, so that they don’t seek payment through alternative and more illegal avenues.

In Australia working for social change may be seen as a sacrifice as we don’t get paid as much as our friends in corporate jobs, but it is also a luxury. It is a luxury because we get to choose this line of work, it is a luxury because we know if things go bad our family will be ok. In a place like Tanzania this is not so clear. A job in an NGO is a good job, it is stable and it pays relatively well. So for many of my colleagues and friends in places like Tanzania, sure it may be a calling but it is also a job that keeps their family alive and well. I don’t begrudge them that.

But are all people so good hearted? Do all people think of their families and their communities first? Unfortunately the answer is no. We all know of stories of fathers drinking away their family’s food money, of mothers gambling away their children’s school fees. Whilst most of us would condemn this kind of behaviour, most of us also do this subtly in our own daily lives. I know I do. We may spend money on a haircut, a new TV, a good book, when we know our money could be better spent on social good in the present and in the future. I have observed this in every society I have lived and visited. The foundation to this is one of our most fundamental drivers. This is a driver not just for survival, but for living. The simple fact that if someone put us in a room with all that we needed to survive (food, shelter, warmth etc) we would still not be satisfied.

Evidence shows that people living in really desperate circumstances, such as famine, will prioritise basic requirements for survival such as food and water, and for people living in luxury and with social support they will prioritise requirements of personal interest. However evidence also shows that for those that live in the area between these two groups, the largest group on the planet, priorities in decision making about their and their families lives varies greatly.

Addressing this middle group in issues of living is where I believe the long term development sector has failed. Sure, there still needs to be funding and systems to meet basic needs, but in only addressing this we are only looking at half of the picture.  In fact I would argue that such an approach has damaged community resilience and sustainable development. Such a system has created dependency and built expectations within community only to be let down. We walk with communities and bring them to their feet but don’t explore with them the wonders of life. We show them possibility and then leave them open and vulnerable to further heartbreak. Addressing the other side of the picture is not only vital to community resilience but would add to the vibrancy of global solidarity. This is a challenge I throw down to myself and the sector in which I work, and a reminder that must sit at the forefront of our collective understanding of humanity; we all want to live not just survive.

Centre for Cultural Partnerships' Leadership movie

I was chosen by the Centre for Cultural Partnerships at Melbourne as one of the select leaders in my field. Here is the movie in which I am featured. It is a great film on different aspects of leadership. Check it out!

Lessons in amateur field driven film making...

I have had the privilege and the honor of sitting with some of the most amazing people on the planet. They have told me their stories, their hopes and dreams. Stories I have tried to represent well as I have told them to friends and family. Stories that inspire me to carry on each day.

Some years ago I felt such a strong urge to share these stories. Such as source of inspiration and knowledge should be shared. That through sharing these stories it could result in true global solidarity.The paralysis of ethical dilemmas however prevented me. The burden of responsibility disarmed me. The solution was to get these people to tell their own stories through methods such as Participatory Video. Participatory Video is a powerful way through which individuals and communities can tell their stories for themselves.

This solution however seemed unsatisfactory to me. Surely as a human I also have a responsibility to bridge the gap between my community and the ones I visit? To have the courage and respect to also tell these stories. But how? Someone with no comms background, with no film experience. A year ago I decided however to stop making excuses and try field driven film making out for myself. Below is a short summary of the experience thus far.

Inspiration is the source of creativity...

The central idea to my films has been from my own interest. If you are not interested in the subject you are filming then it is hard to convince others that it is. For me I have been interested in raising the voices of the most poor and vulnerable to key decision makers and people in power. I decided that my first step in Participatory Video was to try it out for myself. If someone with no media experience or education could make a film, I could better share with others I encourage to do likewise. I have also been very interested in finding ways of using film for monitoring and evaluating change. Uses in techniques such as outcome mapping and Most Significant Change. So find your area of interest and work from there!

Responsibility in telling someone elses story...

Whilst I feel it is a moral responsibility to tell others stories, once you enter this realm you must closely consider ethical dilemmas. Film is a very powerful tool and should be treated with the respect it deserves. Used wrongly you may have a detrimental effect to individuals and communities. In the worst case you may put people in harms way. As a first step you must obtain informed consent, but this must not be the end, you must consider the effects of the use of the film product as you move along. It is sometimes easy to get carried away in trying to achieve change without considering consequence!

Tool up with whatever you have...

There is always debate on what tools to use. I am a fan of the flip cam, others like a larger film camera, some people just use mobile phones. I don't think it matters what you use, just get out there and try them out. You will find out soon enough if what you have suits the purpose. Some of the essentials however are a tripod, enough battery power, and a clean cloth to keep your lens clean. For editing I use simple programs such as iMovie or Movie Maker. I suggest you start with these rather than jumping straight into more advanced programs such as Final Cut Pro.

Get some tips from the pro's...

I like to learn by doing but it doesn't hurt to get some basic tips from those that know their stuff. I spent an hour with my comms team before heading out and an hour when I got back to learn about editing. Some of the best tips I have got are; don't use the zoom, if you want to get close use your feet, think about sound, wind and people talking can really mess things up, think about light, have the light source at your back if possible, frame your shot with principles such as the rule of thirds, allow the subject to move not the camera and keep your hand as still as possible.

Preparation prevents poor performance...

I like making my filming experience as organic as possible. However, after a number of filming experiences that have resulted in days editing when I get back because I took too much and too disjointed filming sequences, I now plan the general flow of my shots. In doing this I set up basic matrix as the one below, however when I am in the field filming I keep this matrix roughly in my head and not in my hand.

Subject, Location and Question matrix

Subject	Location	Questions to ask:
Child 1. (Boy)	Community - 2-3 locations (we would like to see what everyday life looks like for this child - school, play, home)	·          Have you been sick the past month? ·          If you have been sick what were you sick with? ·          Did you go to the health clinic when you were sick or what did your parents do when you were sick? ·          What do you get to eat at home? Is it enough?
Child 2. (Girl)	Community - 2-3 locations (we would like to see what everyday life looks like for this child - school, play, home)	·          Have you been sick the past month? ·          If you have been sick what were you sick with? ·          Did you go to the health clinic when you were sick or what did your parents do when you were sick? ·          What do you get to eat at home? Is it enough?
Mother / Mother in Law/ Grandmother of Child 1.	Community - 1-2 locations (at home or at work)	·          What kind of illnesses do you and your children get sick with? ·          When you or the child becomes sick what do you do (do you go to the health clinic). If yes or no, why? ·          What do you and your children eat, how often is it and is it enough ·          Do the men eat first normally? ·          Did you exclusively breastfeed your baby? If so for how long?

Have a crack...

There is never a better learning process than actually trying it out. In the beginning I suggest that you keep the message very simple but try presenting it in different ways. I started with only having a small memory card that forced me into limited shots so I thought more about the shots I was taking. Experiment with sound, with lighting and with camera position. You will find that the pro's are right in giving you advice but you will also find that your risks and experiments sometimes pay off. You will find your own unique style the more you practice

Put it out there...

It may be daunting but publish your films and share amongst friends, peers and experts. This will help check your technique but more importantly any ethical aspects you may have overseen. Once you get most of the creases ironed out you can go more public with your films. Sometimes we are more afraid of protecting our ego than getting the story totally wrong. I have found constructive criticism good in my film process. I find my style developing based on my own ideas mixed with the reactions from friends and peers.

Live and learn...

I have a number of friends just like me, trying this thing out. I have formed a small group that share movies and chat when we can on our experience. I have found this to be one of the most important ways of motivating me to keep going and to feeling that this work is greater than individual merit and accolade. It is about forming a movement for social change. In this time we have some of the most important tools at hand and we can all do it, so get out there!


If you want to check out my films and make comment to my evolving practice in field driven film making then please go to my youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/matoke74?feature=mhee#p/u

Film and advocacy, ideal principles and practical impacts - a discussion

This week I met with friends and colleagues in Oxford. One of the topics we discussed was how to use story and in particular film within our work as development and advocacy professionals. We agreed on two basic principles. The first is that film is a very powerful tool. The second was that we were all trying to use it for social good. After that we found many paths that crossed and dissected and some that simply lead away from each other.

Our discussions revolved around and were connected to concepts of informed consent and story ownership. We all agreed that consent should be gained from those intellectually and physically connected to the materials generated by the film process. We couldn't agree however on how best to do this. Whether it is OK just to get a verbal consent after asking if we could use their images and voices for general comms and advocacy purposes, or if we needed to spend time explaining in detail what the materials could potentially be used for and what that may mean.

As the conversations went on we found two camps emerging. The first were those that believed that the product should be filmed, produced and owned at all levels by those people on which the issue is based. That is if the issue was about indigenous rights, the indigenous people should be trained in film, shoot their own film, edit and produce this film and decide on its distribution and use. The second camp sympathised with the first but contended that this could not and not always should be the case. They believed due to the urgency of rights issues that some calculated risks needed to be taken in making sure the voices of the people be heard to decision makers and people in power. They believed in the utility of the product for intended good. Further, they felt that first alternative was too time consuming and resource intensive. They also argued that some groups such as indigenous remote communities they would not fully understand how their voices should be used and so they needed greater direction than just leaving it to them.

I have to admit to sympathising with both groups. Ideally I agreed with the first group, practically I agreed with the second group. I suggested that whilst this was a good and important discussion, that in the end the proof was in the pudding. That is if we see improved wellbeing amongst the most vulnerable based on our work then this was surely a good thing? This was agreed but it took us into other territory. The first camp agreed that the second camps approach may have more immediate impact but that their approach would have greater and long lasting impact over time. So change is as much as about impact over time than at any given point in time. We ended the discussion with the development get out of jail card phrase: it depends on the situation and circumstances, like everything it is context specific. And like all good development workers we parted as friends with hugs, not handshaking.

Vlogging Oxford

We experience the gap in life in Oxford, England. Thanks Mike!

The Thrill of the Chase

Most of us are chasing something; the ideal partner, the best fitting clothes, a new house, the latest music, the perfect wave. There has been much written about the dangers of retail therapy, of our cravings and attachment to material things. Whilst I agree with this general observation I would argue that 'the chase' comes from a good place. It comes from a place where our ancestors chased to find shelter, food, water, and clothes for ourselves and our loved ones. This chase goes on for many still today. It is a place that spawned the diverse cultures that populate the planet, the solutions that supply us with what we need, the satisfaction that gives us purpose to wake each day. It is deep within our DNA. I contend we embrace the chase rather than shun it.

As community development workers and campaigners many of us are angry at the fact that there is enough food on the planet to feed everyone but there is still famine, that we know about the need for environmental sustainability but we still live unsustainably, that people are so wealthy they don't know what to do with it whilst many have none. How do we react to this? We set up goals and objectives, we get people to sign our petitions, we gather our troops for protest and we point to tried and tested solutions. I will not argue the merits for and against this, however, I do suggest that we must take one step further and inspire our brothers and sisters in 'the chase' for social good. The chase is the place where vibrant social movements are born. A chase where we can vision a better future for us all.

To truly empower people, for them to own their own solutions, we can't deliver it to them. We know this but we continue to design community change through logframes and design documents years into the future. What we we must do however is give others a chance to catch a glimpse of positive change. It may only be for a second but once individuals and communities catch that glimpse they will start to follow it, just as many of us chase a new pair of jeans. In doing this we must find ways of inspiring people to follow the path and avoid providing a destination.

We can do this through engaging individuals, groups and communities in creative processes that give them the tools to follow this change to their own destinations. The journey is more emotional than a logical conclusion. We must also combine this chase with an experience that exhilarates, that affirms, that encourages and that does point to real and tangible outcomes for individuals and communities; better health, better education, better nutrition, better well being (even better jeans!). So next time you are tempted to provide someone a solution for change, think more about inspiration and help them catch a glimpse of the place we call Utopia. I have caught my own glimpse and am on the chase, I hope you are too! 

Theory of Change, whatever you reckon!

I have been involved in leading and facilitating local, national and global advocacy Theory of Change (ToC)processes. For those in the development business everyone knows Theory of Change as the new fuzzword. Simply though Theory of Change is just an explanation of how change happens. In my experience it has been the construction of a diagram or flow chart explaining how one change leads to another to achieve a certain outcome. Below are some of the main points of the advantages a ToC can bring when setting up your advocacy campaign:

We cannot save the world single handedly...

ToC helps teams understand what changes need to happen to achieve their ultimate goal. As there are many actors that contribute to achieving this goial, it provides a reality check that that team cannot do it all. One of the first mistakes campaigners make is thinking they can save the world single handedly. ToC therefore pushes teams toward their strengths and focuses whilst looking at what partners and other actors are in their space to achieve designated goals.

Operationalising strategy...

In many development and advocacy projects I have commonly seen teams move from identifying problems straight into doing activities. The ToC process allows a process of identifying issues and analysing changes that informs a strategy to be operationalised. That is, once changes are agreed upon then a strategy and associated activities can be set up to affect that change. This stage is often called a Theory of Action (ToA) and it allows teams to analyse how change happens, where they should try affect change and what their organisational strengths and niche may be.

Beyond crystal ball gazing... 

I have found that a ToC process has far greater advantages than a crystal ball foretelling the future. ToCs are often unfortunately used by many as static truths of an ever-changing world. Obviously used this way there is little difference between this and the old model of just identifying problems and then engaging on a range of activities. I contend that the ToC process has many advantages beyond just setting up a considered strategy on a colorful diagram.

Communication tool...

For large global campaigns the ToC is an excellent communication tool. That is if the ToC diagram is complemented with a narrative to explain how change is expected to occur and what will happen to affect that change, then different actors from senior directors to field staff from a range of disciplines can easily see where they fit in. Often change is resisted and animosity can reign as has been the case between traditional development programming and advocacy staff. Development programmers think advocacy people just go to meetings and talk and advocacy people think development programmers only deal with the symptoms not the solutions of poverty. If done properly the ToC process can validate and encourage greater collaboration across multi-disciplinary and multilayered teams.

Unifying tool...

For locally and nationally driven campaigns that encompass teams of up to 30 staff I have found the ToC process as one of the most powerful unifying tools I have worked with. One of the reasons is that identified in the previous paragraph, however there are more. When a group sit together and develop a ToC they must work through assumptions of how change happens and how it can be positively affected. This is usually a long and difficult process but when facilitated well people get to really work through their own capacities, the teams vision of change and a common understanding of the world around them. Often you find in advocacy views of revolution mixed with quiet diplomacy and it is important to unpack these.

Whatever you reckon!

There are very few ultimate truths in community development and so campaigners are continually challenged to kick goals in a world of moving goal posts. Obviously the most accurate ToC is established upon expert advice and close analysis of the issue at hand. However, I would contend that a ToC established by experts with in-depth analysis and not reviewed regularly, is less useful than a ToC established by amateurs but used as a working tool within the campaign. The ToC is ultimately a monitoring and learning tool and should be looked at regularly to continue to unite the campaign group, as well as refine strategy and activities as change occurs in the world around them. The ToC may not predict the future but it helps agreement on 'whatever you reckon' and used that way it can be a powerful driver within advocacy campaigns.

The Space Between

Check out my article on Whydev.org on my 3 month secondment to Kenya last year: http://www.whydev.org/the-space-between-the-dance-of-a-country-program-coordinator-in-the-field/

The career path of Compassion

Last night I sat in on a University undergraduate lecture on how to reach the Millennium Development Goals. I sat there and remembered fondly back to my Uni days. A time where we discussed the big questions; how can we solve world poverty and gender inequality and what is the essence of human nature? Outside my safe circle of like minded friends I was asked other types of questions; why worry so much about others, why are you studying something that wont pay you much when you finish, and of course the favourite one from my parents 'what are you going to do with your life'?

When I sat in that lecture theatre, the question echoed in my mind 'what am I doing with my life'? It was one of those questions I have always been uneasy and reluctant to answer. Once the lecture was over I talked with a few of the students. They asked me how they could get a job like mine, working with a development NGO. What did they have to study, what did they have to do? Well I started with that I have degrees in Nursing, Environmental Science & Philosophy and now studying at the Victorian College of the Arts. But I also told them I had never studied International Development or Advocacy in which I am employed right now. I saw the confusion move over the student faces. They wanted my job, they wanted to do good, and they wanted an answer on how to get there. I couldn't tell them.

On the drive home I thought to myself what am I doing with my life, what skills do I have that put me in the professional position I have? I could only come to one simple conclusion; I have chosen compassion as my career path. It may not have been coupled with much awareness but the past 20 years of traveling the globe, of studying, of sweat has come from a very clear and subconsciously defined career path. What a relief to have put a name to it!

One of the great risks of formal education is that it can disempower the intuition of students. If you can find an answer and pathway through study, through grades, it can lead you to a position of logical engagement. But is this a pathway to the Utopia many of us seek? I should say that the professionalisation of the aid sector and the engagement of the skills from a broad range of disciplines from medicine, engineering, journalism, agriculture and education has had many advantages and has positively impacted the lives of the most poor and vulnerable. However, if those skills are to be engaged at the right time and in the right way they must be lead by those on the career pathway of compassion. If we abandon our intuition and gut feeling for a sanitised version of humanity then we are surely lost. We need both.

So when I get asked next time at a BBQ or by my parents 'what are you going to do with your life', I will tell them I have chosen a very noble career path, it may not pay me well in monetary wealth, but it is abundant in many other gifts, and there is plenty of work going around. It is the career path of compassion.

Change: Stories for the heart - Statistics for the mind

People change for different reasons and by different influences. These reasons are usually either linked to the rational or emotional. In advocacy it is about making sure the right statistic or story is produced to the right person at the right time. Advocacy is more of an art than a science, but this does not imply that it is random and by chance. Advocacy and more particularly advocacy campaigning in aiming to achieve positive social change is very strategic, very focused.

At the heart of this work is a mixture of courage and vulnerability. The right mix can bear fruits, the bad mix can yield genocide. In my experience deep human relationships are formed mostly through adversity, not through triumph. They are formed when people are at their most vulnerable, most defenceless, most open. Marketers know this when they have used starving children in Africa to raise money for Aid appeals. They have appealed to a human emotion that opens peoples hearts and makes them want to act. I would suggest that we must take this one step further. We must engage the human heart with the human spirit. In doing so we engage not only sorrow and despair but also all the other aspects of this human existence; happiness, joy, laughter etc. etc.

One of the most powerful ways of opening the human heart is to engage them in human stories. As a species humans love knowing about other humans, they are drawn to their stories, it is in our DNA. This does not mean that stories have to be about hardship or poverty but more about sharing the same human experience we all recognise; life, death, hope, despair. Once the heart is open people want to respond to that story. In theatres people clap, in fundraisers people pay, in the family people hug.

As an campaigner I see that space between the moment the human heart opens and the need to respond fills it, as the most important opportunity. As in science when a space is empty, it only remains so briefly, as something else soon fills it. I suggest when that human heart is open we as campaigners have the responsibility to present how it may be filled. Now I am not talking about donating money or converting to specific world view, I suggesting that that space be filled with compassion, with understanding and with the tools to be more aware of each individual action they take.

Some also say this is a time for presenting the facts, the data. So that when people act they do it not just through emotion but through understanding. This may be so however we should be careful that we do not take from the individual their experience of understanding and replace it with our own. Such efforts will only be short lived. In my experience humans who connect with other human stories keep them for life. Those stories are told through the generations, over and over again. Statistics, no matter how important only last a while. That is because the human experience through stories go back to our origins, the expression of its experience presented through statistics change for every second we are alive. This is the artwork of life.

Revolution Through Collective Resilence NOT Individual Impatience

When I ask colleagues to articulate my approach to work they usually respond something like this; You are very annoying but also very nice about it. Yes I am annoying I will admit this much, in fact I am proud of it. The reason is I don't seek revolution through seismic shifts but through consistence, persistence, and commitment to do social good (whist of course being nice about it). It is easy (and very important) to get upset about the injustices of the world, to be cynical about the nature of the human heart. I believe this cynicism comes from a place of our own impatience and from our own failures because of it.

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. I am the first to support the idea of a need for a fundamental change in power, I see it in the eyes of children in the communities I visit. I also support the idea that this change is urgent and must occur in a relatively short period of time. The difference is that this time should not be governed by people like me, pushing people into change, but that we all own our human experience and expression. Gandhi once said 'be the change you want to see in the world', that does not mean that be the change you want to see and then force others to do it as well. If we did we would fall into the same trap that oppressive institutions and regimes apply in meeting their own selfish ends. So I suggest simply that revolution must occur through collective resilience not individual impatience. Let me explain.

Firstly I do not believe in inherent good and evil but that we all have to ability to do either. If through my work I try pit the good as I see it against the evil, say of a large exploitative corporation versus citizens of a small Tanzanian village, then what is my vision of revolution? My vision of revolution is 'us against them'. The general conclusion many come to in this situation is a vision of trying to overthrow and oppress the oppressors. To let them taste the medicine of poverty and injustice. Is this a better world? Is this the change we want to see? I think not. 

When we do see evil in the world we want it to stop, we want to reach Utopia Now. This is a good intent but for who do we want this? For our own sense of mind so we can live our lives in peace or for those this evil is thrust upon? I would suggest that often in my case I want it to stop for my own sense of mind. I would further suggest that in raising expectations of those around us in reaching 'Utopia Now' we risk causing more damage than good when it is not immediately realised.

So I have learnt 'to hurry slowly'. That means I cannot lose the sense of urgency of the injustices upon this planet but I must do what I can do to allow those most affected, most vulnerable, to have the space and resources to be the change they want to see in the world. That is my role no matter how long it takes, no matter how annoying I get.

If we are serious about walking this path to Utopia it requires more than patience and urgency as one but we need to make sure we celebrate our steps along the way. We will face challenges as those in power feel threatened and fight back. Often they fight not because they wish harm but are scared harm may come to them. We must meet these challenges with broad collective resilience and with love. This resilience can only be achieved when people feel they are part of the process, they have a stake in it, and not a subject of our impatience. Further, the potential for both good and evil has shown simply that meeting evil with evil does not equal peace. Therefore in countering evil we must lead with two things; unconditional compassion and great awareness.

So whilst I am tempted at time with the anger that consumes my heart of the injustices I see in the world, to knock down those forces oppressing the poor and vulnerable, I must realise this is not just my fight. It is the fight within all of us; to be urgent and impatient, to hurry slowly with our brothers and sisters, to be the change we want to see in the world. We can do it, take a deep breath and continue on the path.

People know what is right - so why don't they do it?

In development work we think we have to change peoples minds for them to do good things. We use the words 'sensitise', 'capacity build', and 'behavior change'. However, I am coming more and more to the realisation that people know what do do, and they know what is right and wrong, but they just don't do it. This idea may not be new to many, and many of you would say the reasons for this are far too complex for us to understand. Some may also say it is because humans are inherently lazy or selfish. What I wish to present to you here is a simple thesis, not complex and judgemental of the human condition.

It has to do with majority rule through the pathway to Democracy and minority rule through representation by the Media. I am a fan of democracy don't get me wrong, it is one of the final frontiers of allowing the individual to participate in the collective decision making of a community or state. It however, like any system has it weaknesses. In Australia, with an increasingly more diverse population of nationalities, sexual orientation, languages, histories and faiths (which I also am a fan of) it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the established political parties to stay relevant to the 'majority'. But no matter how they sell it the political parties wish to be in power and will win votes no matter how they can. And when they are in power they may try govern for most of us but are at the whim of a few, until the next election that is.

One of those whims are the big media giants of the world, more infamous of late being corporations such as Newscorp Ltd. Whether it be a tactic or not the media find stories that are sensational and often driven by a few powerful individuals, or for the greatest sales. They whip up scare campaigns of foreigners invading our shores in boats, of the need to support and invade other countries, and that we can believe climate change isn't really happening. Such issues not driven by fact but emotion results in an 'us and them' mentality. That is the debate comes from the extremes and thus polarises and politicises any discussion of the issue.

I have found however in my meetings with people from all walks of life that their opinions are not so extreme. They appreciate the compassion and understanding we should have for people fleeing persecution. They appreciate we need to think about our role in the world and for our responsibilities to future generations, by addressing such things as climate change. However, many of them stay silent. The reason is that they feel their views and values are of the minority. Studies have shown that this is not the case. They are the majority however stay silent due to the extreme sides the media portrays. As politicians follow suit they also feel uncomfortable when it comes to elections on who to vote for. Yes, in my experience both left and right of politics!

So my thesis is this; the majority of people know what is right and wrong and they know what to do. They do not act on this because they feel they are in the minority. This dynamic results in the extreme sides ruling fueled by the media debate at the expense of majority values. Therefore, our role as development and community advocacy practitioners is not to change peoples minds or to sensitise them but to let them know they are not alone. That their views actually represent the majority, and it is ok to know and do what is right. We must shine a light on the human compassion that already exists within our communities and that solutions are to be found in the masses and not of the few.

Animal rights: Change doesn’t happen just because you have won the argument

What are rights and what is it to have rights? Is it just humans that have rights, or do they extend to other sentient beings? How are rights defined and what are the drivers behind them? In answering these questions I present in this paper an example from the Animal Rights movement. This movement has contended that all sentient beings be afforded fundamental rights. In their attempt to achieve this aim they extend the rational argument provided previously by human rights activists. For many the result has been either a retreat into Speciesism or to follow the argument into Deep Ecology.  To achieve change however I argue that for the Animal Rights movement it is not a matter of just winning the logical argument, but to win the hearts of collective society. Only with this support will the Animal Rights movement move closer toward non-human animals being afforded fundamental rights.

Rights can be simply defined as ‘legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement’. These are often defined into two broad categories; natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are often referred to as fundamental, inalienable or moral rights and legal rights are often known as civil rights or statutory rights. In the animal rights discourse legal rights are often divided along Utilitarian or Deontological lines. This paper however will concentrate solely on the argument of natural or fundamental rights.

Traditionally natural rights have been argued from the point of intelligence, ability to feel pain or religious basis’. The basis for these arguments have been central to either ‘intrinsic value’, that something good or desirable in itself or that of ‘instrumental value’, that something is a means to some other end or purpose.

In his hierarchy of nature, Aristotle said the purpose of the less irrational is to serve the more rational. This provided justification for slavery for centuries to come. That is people seen as less rational or intelligent from a Greco-Roman perspective such as indigenous people could be enslaved for instrumental value. In more recent centuries this view has been challenged and subsequently rejected on the basis of all humans having intrinsic value. The moral contracts to reflect this are found in many sources, most prominently the 1948 declaration of human rights.  More recently the argument of rationality or intelligence as a basis for rights has been extended to include non-humans. Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation argues that non-human mammals such as dogs or pigs are better able to reason than newborn human infants. Therefore, the premise that rationality should decide upon rights was debunked.

Closely connected to the argument of intelligence is that of feeling pain. Descartes in his 1649 Passions of the Soul presents an argument for dualism. That is humans are made of both flesh (the body) and mind (the soul). He posited that it is only humans that have a mind and soul, and that to feel pain one must have a soul. Therefore animals could not feel pain. He was quoted as saying that the screeching and yelping of dogs as they were nailed to trees and dissected were merely ‘nothing but the noises of some small springs that were being deranged.’ This argument has been used for medical research in that animals have instrumental and not intrinsic value. At present however this position is not as stable as it once was. Based on our scientific understanding of pain in relation to the nervous system, and the similarities many animals have to humans, questions around the use of animals in medical research have been raised. Nevertheless, the appreciation that animals do in fact feel pain has resulted in the establishment and support of organisations such as RSPCA and the enactment a number of animal cruelty laws.

Religion and in the Australian culture experience, Christianity was and still is in many respects the moral bedrock of our society. Genesis provides for some justification for animal and environmental domination as it stated that men may ‘have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. However, as the Christian church is being questioned as a force for good, as Australia is becoming increasingly multi-cultural and as many have stopped believing in the existence of God this passage is losing favor.

So, if there is no rational or religious argument for non-human animals being used for human ends then what is the ethical basis for such treatment? The basis’ is largely emotive and can be divided into supporters of three camps; Speciesist, Animal liberationist, Deep Ecologists.

Speciesist’s argue from a simple position, that we must look after our own species first. That is whist we have starving children in Africa and whilst we have loved ones dying of cancer we have just cause to use non-human animals for our own survival. Some even state that having an internationally recognized Rights Based Approach is hard enough let alone trying to bring non-human rights into the picture. Ultimately however, for many to admit to being Speciesist does not sit well. It smacks with the same logic previously used for racism and other oppressive ideologies. Animal liberationists buoyed by their defeat of the rational and religious argument continue the their chase along this path. Deep Ecologists take the argument one step further and argue that entire ecosystems should be afforded fundamental rights. Just as humans are a collection of cells working together in one system so too are forests and coral reefs and should be afforded rights accordingly.

In absence of the rational and in pursuit to defend their positions the different sides of this debate have tried to appeal to more basic human emotions. The Speciesist my tell the hard luck story of a sheep farmer, the animal liberationist the pain chimps go through in the research lab and the Deep Ecologists about our responsibility to future generations. Some may argue or find solace in the side of progressive rights, admitting that fundamental rights for animals will be achieved some day. In one specific case Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby argued in 2008 that the Animal Rights movement had reached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years earlier.

Whatever the case may be made for animal rights, rational or emotional they will not be realized unless they are broadly accepted by society. It is the culture, the shared values that a society holds that define ultimately who or what is afforded fundamental rights and how those rights are realized. In Figure 1 (below) it explains that cultural change and that of rights are achieved over time as individuals and community internalize specific attitudes, values and aspirations that are ultimately expressed as desired behaviors. I contend that animal and even perhaps ecosystem rights may follow a similar path. The main difference however is that as animals and ecosystems do not vote or hold other democratic rights and are therefore dependent upon humans to provide rights to them. To be effective in their aims Animal Rights activists must therefore better analyze how change occurs and find suitable methods to affect that change. The rational is but only one.

Figure 1: The cycle of culture change (Cabinet Office, 2008)