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.