I think people (especially the author of this "article") confuse buzzwords with "fuzzy concepts"--ideas or words that can mean a lot of things depending on who you are and what you know. But here's the good news: when you hold the people slinging these "buzzwords"--which may actually represent something transformative and invigorating or simply reflect superficial frenzied hype in our communication--accountable through intentional dialogue (yes, another "buzzword"), eventually you'll find common ground. That's the whole issue with sustainability: people say "we want a sustainable future" and don't actually want things to continue as they do. They want something better. I champion (another buzzword?) for comprehensive sustainability--which means it coheres social well-being along with prudent economic action and environmental integrity. Many people might assume sustainability means installing twirly CFL light bulbs to end anthropocentric climate change and recycling to solve all our other environmental challenges. It's a "wicked problem" or "wicked process".
For full link to above mentioned "article": http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/4564/jason_lorimer_addresses_meme_without_actually_addressing_it
People seem take issue with not seeing the words he uses in the way that the community of foundations and community investment institutions do, but I suspect that's why he talks about dialogue and participation--so that everyone can find common ground and language to move together with. Pardon the contrary opinion, but I think Jason's statement is probably the most respectful approach to action: to explicitly declare actions beyond seeking participation and dialogue would be arrogant--he'd have to impose initiatives and look like he's doing so on behalf of Detroit. If people's participation and involvement are there, it's a bit simpler, but looking at his work, I think he recognizes that lasting change requires an inclusive co-creative approach. At this point figuring out sound actions probably matter more than imposing grand statements and agendae. For those whom the statements and agendae do matter, he's opened the door to discuss it and establish some degree of trust with them. That makes a lot of sense for the wicked problem/risk governance/democratic/restorative practice processes I've come across.
I've never met the guy in person, nor do I know his tendencies beyond the few items of information I've seen so far. That said, I don't think anyone's in a position to judge an individual in such a context. Have we had the opportunity to meet and maintain some degree of meaningful dialogue with the guy? Very few of us can say so. In sustaining our relationship with the person, is it possible and can we know whether our interactions have shifted their character and ideas over the course of a few years? People can change. Can you help highlight better paths for them to engage?
Yes, and for the sake of where and how we all live, I hope you'll strive to do so. Let's dialogue?
(buzzword? I think not, link goes to a thoughtful definition posed by the Public Conversations Project.)
For full link to above mentioned "article": http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/4564/jason_lorimer_addresses_meme_without_actually_addressing_it
People seem take issue with not seeing the words he uses in the way that the community of foundations and community investment institutions do, but I suspect that's why he talks about dialogue and participation--so that everyone can find common ground and language to move together with. Pardon the contrary opinion, but I think Jason's statement is probably the most respectful approach to action: to explicitly declare actions beyond seeking participation and dialogue would be arrogant--he'd have to impose initiatives and look like he's doing so on behalf of Detroit. If people's participation and involvement are there, it's a bit simpler, but looking at his work, I think he recognizes that lasting change requires an inclusive co-creative approach. At this point figuring out sound actions probably matter more than imposing grand statements and agendae. For those whom the statements and agendae do matter, he's opened the door to discuss it and establish some degree of trust with them. That makes a lot of sense for the wicked problem/risk governance/democratic/restorative practice processes I've come across.
I've never met the guy in person, nor do I know his tendencies beyond the few items of information I've seen so far. That said, I don't think anyone's in a position to judge an individual in such a context. Have we had the opportunity to meet and maintain some degree of meaningful dialogue with the guy? Very few of us can say so. In sustaining our relationship with the person, is it possible and can we know whether our interactions have shifted their character and ideas over the course of a few years? People can change. Can you help highlight better paths for them to engage?
Yes, and for the sake of where and how we all live, I hope you'll strive to do so. Let's dialogue?
(buzzword? I think not, link goes to a thoughtful definition posed by the Public Conversations Project.)
No comments:
Post a Comment