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)

NIMBYism an Australian Ethic that may be our undoing

It was a Saturday, just like today. My father was reading the Age Newspaper as he did every Saturday. Just as I did today. The year was in 1984, and I was 10 years old. On the front page of the newspaper was a picture of a child, the same age as me, starving to death. I remember asking my Dad what this was about and my father awkwardly but calmly explained what was happening in this far off place called Ethiopia. A place where hundreds of thousands if not millions of people died due to famine. I remember being so shocked and outraged by this. I remember taking the picture of that starving child and putting it up on my room which I shared with my two brothers. My father asked me why I had done this? I said 'so I don't forget that there are people in the world just like me, but a lot worse off'. This one event was and still is a fundamental driver of mine. The strong belief that no matter where you are from, what you believe, what sex you are we are all equal. This may sound cliche' but I actually do deeply believe this.

Since that time I engaged myself in all kinds of projects of social conscience. I organised 40hour Famine for my school, protested against nuclear testing, marched for indigenous rights. These engagements and movements lead me around the globe. I remember returning home from time to time and my fathers friends used to laugh at my efforts, some used to empathise but stated that it was all too hopeless and others downright despised me. That I would break laws and get arrested, that I would suggest that people from far off countries had the same rights as us, that I would continue despite the lack of social good in the world.

Now I am the first to admit that not all the projects I was involved with had positive outcomes. I may also be disheartened that 27 years on I read in the same Age Newspaper today that 30,000 children have died due to the recent famine in Somalia. But my fundamental belief of all life is precious and equal is as strong as when I was 10. And despite some of the things I have seen it is a belief that sits at the centre of every human heart. At least I like to believe so.

Let me provide one simple example. The year was 2004, I had returned from a recent trip, and was at our local pub. For some strange reason these apathetic and confrontational friends of my father wanted to be my best friend. They told me we were now comrades, that they too were fighting for their rights and their survival. They asked me if I could join their cause. The cause was to stop a State Government planned Toxic Dump in the area. They were prepared to protests, to break laws to do whatever they could to stop this dump going ahead. What culminated was a social movement made up of unlikely allies, left and right from politics, business men and working class, even supporters of rival football teams. In 2007 after three years of solid campaigning the State Government reversed their plans to establish a toxic dump in the area. The No Mallee Toxic Waste Dump Campaign had won.

Imagine, these groups of people, once so apathetic, once so aggressive to the idea of fundamental rights, now fighting for their own. Unfortunately the comradely with my fathers friends soon waned once the Campaign was won. Now we are back at the same old stand off between apathy and aggression. I am sad to say that many of them happy to have refugee children sent to Malaysia and to stand by and watch kids starve in East Africa. Whilst I am angry with the return to the status quo, I am mostly bewildered. I wonder why something that was so clear to a 10 year old, is so difficult to understand by well educated adults.

The only answer I can find is the fond Australian ethic of NIMBY; Not In My Back Yard. NIMBYism is the value of protecting your own backyard and not anyone elses (unless it suits you). It is Darwinist in its essence and is found amongst communities who have greater resources to defend their own turf and the convenience to ignore others as it suits them. It is also found in places where individual gain is recognised over collective benefit. What is forgotten by NIMBYites is that whilst in the short term it may meet their ends, in the future it may and most probably will be our collective undoing. We may blame our NIMBY culture on our isolation as a nation, that we are a small population, or that many of us had to battle to get where we are.However, the more humans retreat into their own selfish desires, the less trust, solidarity, diversity and common values will exist. Such a situation is not good for anyone. The remedies to NIMBYism are complex. It is both an intellectual and emotional pursuit. It involves an engagement of people from all walks of life, just as the No Mallee Toxic Waste Dump Campaign did, not just on a local but on a global stage. Perhaps however the most essential ingredient is the courage and outrage of a 10 year old.