the guru illusion (yeh guruwuru kya hai yaar?)

I am increasingly feeling myself anti-guru - at least in the traditional sense. Some great posts from Mushin who deconstructed his own guru role helped strengthen this feeling in me - although it has been there for quite some time (this is one example). More recently, I was chatting to someone about Baba Asharam Dev here in India who has been implicated in the killing of a child in his ashram as a way of building up religious fervour... Now, this guy has a massive following and loads of money. But why do people place their faith in some distant bearded figure whose words and actions could well have nothing to do with each other!?

The idea that emancipation is possible through one of these bearded fellows who sits on a pedastal is bullshit. Until we learn to realise that God (for want of a better word) exists within ourselves and all those around us, we will spend our lives sitting in the shadow of obscure religious figures whose real nature is as elusive as the very truth we are searching for. What we need is an alternative model for guru. One that ties in more deeply to the social reality that we are confronted with in the present age: loss of community, fragmentation, competitive individualism and the spate of horrors that this brings with it. We need a new conception of guru that embodies collective, distributed wisdom that can transport us to higher levels of collective being.

One simple way of approaching this is to look for the truth in the people who share our immediate circle: one's partner, one's children, one's neighbours, one's community. Can we see the truth in each person? Can one see the wisdom and teaching that each carries? Can we embrace our total lived experience as the guru, seeking the truth, the love, the wisdom or the lesson that can transport us higher in everything around us?

As Lao Tse puts it: "...the good teach the bad/ and the bad are lessons for the good". There is nothing that carries no teaching.

To do this requires the greatest of all powers: having an open heart. Can I have space in my heart for the other? Can I embrace the unknown? Can I let go? Can I dissolve all my boundaries? Can you do it with me?

Let us speak openly and from the heart about things that matter to us. Let us reach out to those who are least heard and let each other into our hearts and let this be the foundation of our families, our communities, our work places and our societies. Then let the guru emerge from our collective interactions and let that be our guide for the future.

What need is there to give more advice than this? Surely the rest will follow from the process!

Women, unity, gifts and spirituality: the foundation for women led community development in Delwara

In the small multi-caste town of Delwara, a women's group has been formed. This group is a platform for women to come together on a common platform across all kinds of traditional divides - caste, religion, class, etc. - to become agents of their own destiny. This morning, I spent a few hours with the group exploring some of the following questions:

• what is unity?
• how is unity created?
• how is unity destroyed?
• how is unity sustained?

Through these questions we covered a wide range of issues: the importance of knowing each other; what does it take to develop a meaningful relationship; making space in the heart for each other; listening with the heart to each others' stories; being there for each other; striving to understand each other; not letting divisive politics fragment the group (a responsibility of each individual); and the need to continuously nurture the group and retain courage in the face of all manner of challenges.

We also discussed the idea that each person present was bringing with them a gift. The group belongs to the women and it is nourished by the gifts that the women themselves bring. What are these gifts that the women bring? The ability to listen. A readiness to help those in need in whatever way possible. A spirit of cooperation and assistance. A desire to make a positive contribution in the world.

It struck me, as we engaged in this conversation, that we had reached a special level in the group. There was an emotional intensity, a sense of being part of something deep - perhaps even spiritual. The group was moving as a whole in a container that reverberated with the sense of collectivity that resonated from the women sitting there. This may only be my take on it though I do plan to check up on this feeling soon.

In some ways, I feel that I crossed a barrier, a boundary in the way that we usually dialogue. It is as though we made a shift from talking about mere practicalities or technicalities of rights, and government and frameworks and water tanks and pension schemes to tapping into the very soul of the women and its collective expression in their group. The words and emotions that were being exchanged were expressions of that individual and collective soul and, at the same time, the food that nourishes it. A deepening reminder of the fact that it is this level of conversation that connects the individual woman and her own soul to that of the group. In this sense it was both transcendental and palpable.

And what this really brings me to is something that I have felt for a long time but never really made a formal point of - and that is that this thing we call development really needs to be reframed as a spiritual process; a process of collective spiritual evolution. I do not feel that this is a dimension that finds adequate expression in the existing discourse around development - even in Seva Mandir. As we work on non-formal education centres, or village institutions, deal with targets and logical frameworks, worry about accountability and transparency, and so on... are we giving due attention to the fact that we are engaged in a process of spiritual evolution? Is there a space for this?

As an afternote: I really enjoyed working with Gulabji (who has replaced me as project coordinator in Delwara) today. He gave space where it was desired and support where it was required. He also was able to bring together spirituality across Hindu-Muslim divides in a seamless and natural manner and although we had not discussed our programme at any great length beforehand, it felt as though we were playing a familiar game. So my deep thanks and respect go out to this special soul!

who am i writing for

It just struck me that my style of writing is kind of like: 'this is for me, not for you'. Which, is all very well for me, but then what about you? What I would really like to know is how I can combine my writing for me with my writing for you! I want to learn how to write directly from my very centre but write it as though I was listening from where you are - and still have it sound just right.

Because, though I am writing for myself, I like to hope that what I write has meaning that extends beyond myself. Like any songbird - quite content to sing to himself - I also want to be a part of the dawn chorus... the Great Awakening. The realisation, quite simply, that 'This is That'.

Let this be another area of inquiry!

the complan: where am i now?

An interesting time to write: I'm really supposed to be converting the last 6 months of dialogue, head-scratching, getting tired and worked up, writing on flip-charts, making presentations and so on into a single document that will: (a) communicate to donors what it is that Seva Mandir is planning to do for the next 3 years; and (b) serve as a reference point for Seva Mandir reminding it of the emerging directions and strategies that it has evolved. This document - the 6th Comprehensive Plan - is due in 6 days. But my mind, as ever in these moments, is filled with a multitude of other thoughts - not entirely off topic but off-topic enough to distract me from writing that document!

I think there are questions I have asked in the past that would be very suitable for picking up at this stage in time. Almost all of these questions relate to the process that we followed; to the changes that have taken place (or not); to my hopes and expectations as compared to what really happened; to what i can learn from the path that has been followed (including what I could have done differently - or would do differently next time); to try to identify patterns in the way decisions were taken and the process evolved (and looking at who had what role in that process, including myself); to think about what the blind-spots have been/are - both my own, of key individuals and in the organisation at large; to think of what I will work on when I return...

I have blogged earlier about some of the positive trends that have emerged as a result of the process, so I won't get into the details of the answers to all these questions now...

However, I do feel the need to express one of the feelings that emerges in response to all these questions. That feeling is that Seva Mandir has some blind spots in terms of the way it operationalises its understanding of complexity, power, organisation and learning - and this needs to be addressed. So long as these blind spots remain unresolved, some very critical problems will persist and continue to serve as a source of much pain and frustration for all those involved.

Writing up the Comprehensive Plan document while I can feel and see all of these things - perhaps all brought into stark relief as a result of the process that we have followed for the last 6 months - and not having the time to properly engage with any of these issues is like a kind of torture! However, it is helping me to cultivate that wisdom of the Tao.

It is also showing me, quite clearly, that the kind of process I undertook here was not able to get to the real depths of the issues and that an altogether different approach would probably be required. Interestingly, I feel that it would not necessarily be one that piggy-backs or is incorporated into a time-bound 'comprehensive plan' type planning process. It may well be that such a process contains within itself anti-learning elements. Therefore, the real change process will be one that systematically builds deeper and deeper learning into everything that the organisation does.

This, it seems to me, is really a quest for profound inter-personal truth and understanding. It is a spiritual quest and it cannot be packaged in a 6 month process. Though perhaps such a process can help us launch ourselves on such a trajectory... And it's just too early to really say whether this has happened yet or not... And so, life in limbo for Andre continues. Now I should really be getting back to writing the comprehensive plan!

levers

While the old saying - there is no 'magic lever' - does seem to hold true at some level, I have come to look at things a little differently. My current sense is that:

Everything is a lever if you look at it the right way!

All this is really saying is that every situation contains a pathway out; a particular route that will lead to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The real challenge that lies before humanity today is to become masters at seeing that pathway through all the other clutter that gets in the way or obscures our vision of what really matters!

And while there may be no single lever, starting to see the potential lever in every situation and learning how to use it (or them) in the best possible way could be, in its own right a kind of magic lever. Just as with a regular lever, this means knowing what it rotates around, how that connects it to everything else, whether it should be pulled or not, and what, exactly, it will take to get that lever moving.

We need methods and anti-methods for our madness!

blind spots and collective evolution

A number of conversations and random readings over the last few days have really re-sensitised me to the need to understand the issues surrounding resistance to change... One idea that keeps on floating back is that change often seems to happen in spite of all the things that organisations do to prevent it. Change is about breaking patterns of behaviour or relationship that are by their very definition self-replicating, self-reinforcing. This is what creating novelty is all about. This is innovation. And a good reminder for an organisation working to bring about change in society is that it can only happen there if it is happening within us, within the organisation. We have to be in a state of creative, spontaneous change, always.

In order to do/be this we need to identify our blind spots – the systematic oversight that prevents us from seeing what it is that we are all doing that is obstructing us; the patterns of behaviour and thinking that prevent us from moving forward simply, creatively, harmoniously. These obstructive patterns emerge out of the simple interactions amongst us all every day. However, the process of their emergence is vastly complex – and that is one of the main reasons that they remain invisible to us. Understanding how the little, well-intentioned, self-righteous efforts we make every day add up to a vicious cycle that leads to stagnation at best and collapse at worst, seems critical. And that calls for a deep, collaborative inquiry into our very own selves; to know who and what we really are and to learn how to evolve, as both a collective and its individual members, in a more effective manner.

Just a test

This is just a test to see whether I can get my blog directly published in my eldis blog... Then I would need to figure out how to select whether or not to get a particular blog posted to the eldis blog or not... Hmmm... now would that be too much to ask?!?!

the right course!

Just came across the following in the Introduction chapter of the Handbook of Action Research (Reason and Bradbury, 2008) - one of my course texts.

...the primary purpose of action research is not to produce academic theories based on action; nor is it to produce theories about action; nor is it to produce theoretical or empirical knowledge that can be applied in action; it is to liberate the human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better, freer world.

If this is to be the spirit of the course, then I think I might have chosen the right one. But shouldn't this be the goal of all 'education'?

Peace yaars!

vehicles for social objects

The last few posts on social objects have been gradually bringing a bit of clarity on how these social objects fit into the work that Seva Mandir and, I suppose, other organisations like it are involved in. This post is concerned with what, presumably can also be thought of as a social object: the vehicle or container for the social objects and the change that they have the potential to unleash. Although in the past I have tended to talk about containers, they have something too static sounding about them - which is not at all a good symbol of the dynamic process or context within which dialogue and action around social objects takes place!

The container-vehicles appear to have many levels. I will focus on only a few at this stage, and of these few, mainly on one. The few include: the organisation, the programme, the implementation team. The one will be the programme. My questions is basically this: what are the implications for the development and deployment of social objects (our medium for catalysing change) of being situated within a programme.

This line of inquiry emerges from a naggling sense I have that 'programmes' tend to function or be understood and interfaced with within a machine-like framework. By this, I mean to say they are defined by a simple, listed set of linear - almost mechanical - processes - such as making a visit, filling in a monitoring format, making a payment, holding a meeting, giving a training, which have the potential to be disembodied from the deeper engagement that is required to catalyse real change. That is to say, that the engagements see the creation of the social object(s) as ends in their own right rather than as means to a higher end.

For example, a day-care centre for children must be run (as targets have to be fulfilled) and running it is itself a worthwhile achievement (after all, we will be able to achieve our targets, for which we have requested funds and are now accountable), regardless of whether it is being used to the fullest to catalyse social change. Why does this happen? And why do targets continue to rise, year after year even when the desired quality of work on the existing centres has not been achieved? The answers to these questions (which I will not go into right now) are numerous and reflect the complex context within which development work takes place. All the same, it happens, to the detriment, I believe, of the quality of the work. Indeed, there is a kind of shallow engagement that takes place and expansion merely makes it more difficult to go into the kind of depth that is required to really understand what is going on. This feeds into some kind of vicious cycle and so it goes on.

Now, it may be unfair to attribute this 'problem' as an inherrent feature of the nature of 'programmes'. Instead, it might be better to say that this is an observable characteristic of most programmes, their potential for being more evolutionary and dynamic may simply be getting systematically missed because of the way people think, regardless of the existence of programmes or not. This raises the important questions of what the potential of 'programmes' actually is; why programmes are presently functioning within a 'machine' model; how would a programme operating outside the 'machine' model function (what would be its essential characteristics); and what would it take in order to make this kind of a transition within an organisational context.

Somehow, the understanding that can emerge from an inquiry into these issues needs to become institutionalised within the organisation. I suppose that a collaborative action-research-based intervention into the programme itself could be a good way to achieve this.

social objects as medium for change - v2

After writing that last post, I came up with a slightly more elaborate diagram for thinking about social objects and how they fit into the social change process that Seva Mandir is trying to bring about... It's a skill I'm trying to develop (the diagramming that is) ;p

There are still a lot of question marks in my mind about this - and there are a lot of black/grey boxes that are in real need of getting opened up. This is especially the case with the design of the social object (and not just its actual design but the way that the designing itself fits into the overall process), and the issue of how convergence or co-evolution of the values takes place through dialogue and action around the social object.

I have also made a special effort to include resources as one of the attributes that communities bring to the table (rather than just needs) as I fear that we sometimes forget that communities do have resources - and I don't just mean Rs.5 a month - I'm talking more about knowledge and insights about what can work and what can't and why... and probably a lot more than that too!

Which brings me back to that oh-so-critical question of what, exactly the community is... and, if it's really so fragmented, then (a) can I still get away with calling it a community?; and (b) how can the social object and associated process be used to actually nourish community and make it vibrant? If community is both a means and an end (which means it implies something normative) - if it is our purpose-idea - if we really believe that the answer to all of the problems we are facing stem out of a severe loss of social cohesion, of community, then what we really need to be studying in a very rigorous way is just how, exactly, community gets built. And that is what this line of inquiry is all about!

On we go!

A new line of inquiry: social objects as medium for change

I have been thinking about social objects (a la Hugh of gaping void) for a while now - particularly in the context of the kind of work that Seva Mandir is involved in - i.e. 'community development'.

"The Social Object, in a nutshell, is the reason two people are talking to each other, as opposed to talking to somebody else."

In this line of work social objects are our medium for bringing about change within a community. They are the objects that cause people (staff and community) to engage with each other and bring about change. This line of thinkin"g led me to the the following two questions...

1. What are the social objects through which our relationship with the community is mediated?
2. How, exactly, do these social objects mediate our relationships with the community?
   
3. What are the implications for how they contribute to a desirable change process?
   

... and the following little diagram (it's only version 1 and seems quite incomplete. Your suggestions would be welcomed!):

Essentially this diagram is trying to say that the social object is the interface between Seva Mandir and the community. It is then trying to point out that the social object is active or effective to the extent that it is able to find resonance at the level of such factors as 'shared values', and 'resources that meet needs'. Admittedly, this isn't saying a great deal. The really critical aspect of all this is how the social object leads to change...

The answer, as far as am I concerned is 'dialogue' or 'conversation'? Conversations that achieve convergence of the values. Conversations that match resources with needs. And then, there is the question of whether or how the conversations are able to influence the design of the social object itself! Do we simply deliver ready-made, pre-packaged solutions to the community or are we all engaged together in a continuous process of evolving these solutions based on local conditions? How might/does this impact on the direction and quality of the social change process?

Drawing on my experience to date, I have started thinking about what some of the answers to some of the first three questions might be and I have also started thinking that taking up these questions as new line of inquiry - possibly one combined with workshops and trainings involving staff across the organisation - and especially the front-line staff- could have a rather profound effect on how the work gets carried out on the ground.

Here are some quick responses to the questions that seem to be bubbling up:

1. What are the social objects through which our relationship with the community is mediated?
These objects seem to fit into distinct categories - some are more direct and tangible others less so.

The direct and tangible ones include things like: non-formal education centres, meetings, lift irrigation systems, forestry projects, a health camp...

The indirect and intangible ones include things like: objectives, values, ideas, images, metaphors, targets, responsibilities... perhaps these cannot be called social objects? Are they properties of the social objects or do they exist in their own right?

I think there's probably some kind of a matrix that can be constructed here...

2. How, exactly, do these social objects mediate our relationships with the community?
I suppose this question is really getting at the matter of how the social objects - the way they are lived (constructed, interpreted, understood?) by people - contribute to (enable, enhance or constrain) - the change process... At another (deeper?) level this is also a question of how they determine or shape the quality of the relationships that exist between the organisation and the community... which feeds back into the first question... What are the various factors that influence this?

One part of this inquiry would probably involving using a bit of ethnomethodology or something of the sort to really start looking at how the meaning of the social objects is actually articulated and lived by the various stakeholders... This would hopefully generate the kind of evidence that can be used to understand the dynamics of the process through which different relationships based on different sets of meaning and experience are brought to life... And this, perhaps, could be used to design interventions in a manner that more intentionally emphasises the positive transformation that we all (hopefully) end up desiring.

For example is 'a target' itself a social object or is 'target' a property of a more tangible social object - like' a non-formal education centre'? How does 'target' affect the relationship between staff and community? How does it affect the way that people relate to the social object itself and how does it affect such critical factors as the transfer of values and the occurence of social change? I think there is rather a lot to be explored here and some detailed case-studies would be required...

3. What are the implications for how they contribute to a desirable change process (and, therefore, what we ought to do about it all)?
This question follows on from where the previous question leads us... It probably needs to be taken a little further, beyond understanding the dynamics of the process towards the all important question of how we use our new understanding to make the social objects (however we end up framing them) more effective catalysts of 'desirable' change.

Now, one of the critical questions that I seem to be skirting around here is the question of what, exactly, constitutes 'desirable' change. Who gets to frame it? How do we judge if this really is desirable? Is joint inquiry with the community adequate or do we need something more? This is the real sensitive stuff and everything that we do - assuming we discover a way of being wildly successful - will have this 'desirable' element embedded into it.

And this leads us back to the really critical issue of 'conversations'. How do we structure our conversations around the social objects that we are creating or co-creating with the community as an interface for social change? Are there simpler or more effective ways of going about this than what we have already discovered?

If I can get deep enough into this inquiry then perhaps it will be possible to really uncover some valuable material and develop some deep processes maps... I'm especially thinking in terms of some recent questions that have been surfacing in my work, mind and conversations about what, exactly, we mean by community (does it exist yet?) and how we can leverage the rampant fragmentation in the communities we work with through the designs of our interventions, thereby enhancing our ability to actually build (or rebuild) community. It would also be really interesting to see how all of this can be woven into a process that simultaneously enhances the capacity of the organisation and its staff to engage within this kind of a framework!

A lot of questions. Far fewer answers. But something to get the appetite throbbing!

Some positive feedback on the 6th CP process

Another pleasing outcome of today's 'last' meeting for the 6th CP process has been the positive feedback on the overall process received by the team (which includes me). It was good to hear people voicing many of the points that I had mentioned in an earlier post based on my own observations. I guess it means that something has worked :)

My biggest fear, however, lingers: we have said great things, and committed to great actions... but when it comes to delivering, how will we avoid those old attractors - those negative, self-defeating behaviours and patterns encoded in our relationships and values that lock up our potential...

Having said that, I do seem to have been accorded (publicly) responsibility for helping to ensure that the conversations continue, that people from the organisation keep on coming together to talk about their work and to feed this into the organisation's ongoing evolution...This is great because it's definitely part of what I hope to work on when I come back for my field placement in January! It will be fascinating to help the oragnisation through the difficult process of untangling its great commitments in the form of new and more effective ways of relating to and engaging with the change process!

the giant organic organisational learning cycle

A few posts back, I ended a status report on the 6thCP process with a question along the lines of:

is it normal to see or feel things happening as part of an organisational change process in a kind of staged manner?

Right now the answer looks like a glaring kind of a 'yes'. I got an insight into this today during what is probably the last big meeting of the preparatory phase of the 6thCP process. It was a good meeting, with a pro-active vibe and a good bit of laughter (despite an agenda that threatened to bore the living daylights out of people and to result in bruised buttocks).

In any case, i got my inkling while a discussion was going on about the newly created income generation cell, which I had sort of hoped would end up getting called a livelihood cell. The idea of calling it a 'livelihoods cell' appears to be more of my idea than anyone else's and, thus, it has not been given that name. Calling it a livelihood cell would carry certain implications for its functioning and its remit. Calling it an income generation cell seems more limited in scope. However, i held off from making a deal about this because I felt that there could be benefits derived from being more specific and focused here. This is what I foresaw:

Setting up a livelihood cell would bring together people from the different programmes. They would start talking about and trying to tackle large abstract issues and they would eventually have to narrow down their spectrum of issues to something achievable or manageable. Extensive discussions could take place around how NRD, GVK and WCD could perhaps work in a more effective manner together so as to encourage the emergence/support of more livelihood enhancing interventions/activities. However, the change would be distributed and may not have the potential to show solid results until deciding to shift onto the 'income generation' realm.

Setting up an income generation cell would also bring people together from the different programmes. It would start by trying to identify potential projects that could be taken up for achieving concrete results in terms of income generation activities for selected groups of individuals in different pockets. There would remain a disjoint between groups that were getting included and others that would get left behind. Questions would begin to emerge about how we broadbase what we have been learning. This would probably draw the cell to conduct a thorough inquiry into the efforts that it had made with different clusters/sectors and this would generate lessons learned that could be then taken up by the various programme units in a more systematic manner.

Both these stories are hypothetical, and the truth is that it could move in either direction. Clearly, this means I am in the 'complex' domain and probing will be the only way forward (for me, at this stage)... I feel that I am coming more to the conclusion that it won't make too big of a difference where the whole thing starts... If the team takes things seriously, has good quality conversations (and that isn't really just a little if!) and a fair dose of soul-searching it will gradually enable itself to do what it needs to do. In any case, I decided not to try and make noise about the livelihood issue - mainly because I couldn't decide whether it would really make a difference. It will be interesting to observe how the formation of the income-generation cell impacts on the rest of the organisation - especially the key programme units represented in it.

Anyway, the learning insight was this:

• Take several similar units of inquiry and engage in a thorough action research process into them over a period of time that seems reasonable in relation to the timescale of the change that is being sought (hard to predict in advance really).
• Then explore what worked, what didn't work and why, paying close attention to the way that particular factors (especially common factors) appear to have been influenced by context.
• Use this to distill achievements, lessons, challenges, questions and principles that can be upscaled or mainstreamed
• Repeat as required using new or existing units of inquiry as required

As I pondered this particular process later in the day, it struck me that this is a kind of archetypal action research process. Even a collaborative action inquiry would work the same way if the unit of inquiry is taken to be one of the collaborative individuals. It also seems like a kind of fractal pattern in the sense that it can be used on multiple scales, contexts and conditions. That makes it even more archetypal. Now if we could just see a little bit more evidence of this process being followed rigorously, with documentation that really goes in depth into how the change processes are taking place, I might just find myself starting to agree with Neelima about the idea that the whole organisation is one big action-research... Though I think I've said this before... that's not a little if :)

Peace!

social capital - possibility is in our hands

Another long-standing topic that I am finally getting around to putting on my blog... and a good follow-up for the previous blog. It struck me one day in Delwara as I found myself trying to stop two 'community leaders' from neighbouring communities - one a tribal (Gameti) the other a scheduled caste (Meghwal - traditionally tanners/leather-workers).

The fight was over some misunderstanding/miscommunication rather than any real transgression though there were some territorial undertones. I was standing on top of a pile of sand on top of the hill upon which the tribal community has built their basti. It's a beautiful location and the houses there have the best view of the whole village - including the Devigarh fort. Of course, it's cramped up there, there's no water supply (a real problem for the women and young girls who fetch it), and the community is one of the poorest in the village so - relative freedom aside - life is pretty tough for the inhabitants.

I once watched an 80 year-old man on top of that hill crushing rocks next to a 4x6 foot stone cubicle with no roof (which, I discovered later was his home). This involve hammering a 6" iron nail into the rocky ground by banging it with a big stone. In the corner of the cubicle was a little hand-made earthern stove with some ashes at the bottom of it. The old man was too old to really earn any money through labour work. He got most of his meals from the neighbours - which they gave up with what seemed like a mix of reluctance and obligation. After the community sent an application to the citizen's forum, roofing was arranged - just in time to keep his home dry as the monsoon rains started a few days later. By the time we went to put the roof up, he had expanded his house to around 7x6 feet using the stones he had been crushing right there on the spot. Amazing.

In any case, back to the fight. So, there had been some miscommunication. The meghwal chap was working as a mason on the construction work of a water tank. Some mistrust had emerged over the issue of whether work was properly being distributed between therespective labourers of the tribal and the Meghwal community. By the time I was at the site, the situation was pretty bad. There was shouting, throwing of insults, angry faces, high BP, and people throwing their hands up in the air. It reached the point where the parties were shouting that no water tank would be built in that location. Well, there goes the reliable, convenient water source for about 50 families.

As I stood on top of that hill and calmed the people down, shifted the blame onto myself and my team (we did have an unfortunate hand in propagating the miscommunication - it happens sometimes that false information circulates unintentionally in the messy, complex chaos that gets called 'the community') , calmed the two people down, and re-established the fact that the water tank really was a good idea and that everything was going to be ok I found myself thinking about social capital... and my thoughts went something like this...

Social capital is a form of 'the commons'. It is, perhaps, the most fundamental form of 'the commons'. Traditionally 'the commons' has referred to natural resources - initially pasture lands on which shepherds could graze their cattle and later it has expanded to include things like the climate or biodiversity. But my sense is that we really need to start talking about what it is that holds all these things together - what it is that we need to restore if we want to address the tragedy of these commons. And that thing is social capital: our relationships and the potential they represent for enriching lives.

Social capital is the common resource that has been most ignored and most overlooked in the general discourse on the commons. It is like a vast, untapped - almost infinite - sea - like the internet - source of potential for creating the world in new and wonderful ways. If we have high levels of social capital - deep, meaningful relationships with each other that are bursting with opportunities for collaboration - jointly making things happen in ways that are mutually beneficial - then what can't we achieve?

Unlike the traditional and modern commons - our grazing lands and the ecosphere for example - social capital (can we venture calling it community?) has a direct link with our assumptions, biases and prejudices: the way we perceive ourselves, others and the relationship in-between. For example, do we distinguish people - either consciously or unconsciously - according to religion, caste, gender, age, class, education status, appearance, position within an organisation? Do we assign different levels of trust/mistrust based on this? Do we open or close opportunities for working together or, for that matter, even talking to each other based on this?

Every time I make a judgement based on identity and foreclose an interaction, an opportunity to understand, listen, engage and build a relationship, I am simultaneously denying myself and the other person an opportunity to acquire social capital. And this appears to be the most defining feature of what still seems to get called 'community' in this communally dilapidated age. Walls exist everywhere, between everyone, and the result is a bunch of isolated people who can't even have the conversations that they need to have to begin thinking about what it would take to change the world for the better.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to get at here but I think the main point is that if we want to ever start the process of addressing the world's biggest problems we need to engage in a very real way with some of the very smallest. Why do I call it the smallest? Well, given my (perhaps naieve) sense of how the world works - one's own behaviour is the only thing that one really has any control over. I'm not trying to say that it's easy and I don't mean to sound corny but it really does make sense. So it seems that part of saving the world is helping people to realise that they can have control over themselves, and that collectively, if a group of individuals can wake up to this call for taking responsibility for their own behaviour, they can access a vast sea of social capital just waiting to be unleashed as a force for creating a better world together

Create the opportunities - the spaces and the call to get inside them and tap into the source of community. Let them do it!

community based organisations vs. organised communities

So, I've had this long-standing thought about working with communities... I have this notion that it's not particularly original but all the same it strikes me as worth noting down - especially as I'm in need the middle of preparing a proposal that builds on this idea.

Most of the development discourse - and I suppose I'm talking here about the mainstream stuff - seems to talk about what they call CBOs - Community Based Organisations. This term refers to just about any type of organisation that consist of people who live within a geographically bounded area. In general, big implementing agencies like to work with 'CBOs' because they contribute to the 'sustainability' of the intervention being implemented and project the image of being community-centred and participatory. OK.

However, there's something I don't like about the term 'CBO'. Is it to do with the way that it doesn't really do justice to the very notion of community? For that matter, what is a community? Isn't a community form of organisation in its own right? And if it is, are we really treating it like one? How can we re-frame these questions and ideas in a way that gives them more meaning and brings them more to life?

These kinds of questions led me to the idea of talking about 'organised communities' rather than 'community based organisations'. The question then becomes not one of how strong is the community based organisation but one of how strong is the community. This then leads us to confront what we are actually talking about when we talk about community. What is a community? What would we like our community to be like? What are the fears we have about the future of our community? What are the hopes we have for the future of our community?

Community itself seems so much more rich and meaningful a concept than CBO. CBO doesn't seem to carry any sense of neighbours caring about each other, of people being engaged in celebrations or festivals together: it seems well and truly void of culture. This, I believe is one of the great dangers of most development work: it tends to ignore the vast realm of culture. And I don't mean preserving traditional culture - I mean thinking about 'development' as a process of bringing about intentional, positive, cultural change through a process of dialogue combined with action.

Community is all about relationships. The work that we really ought to be doing is helping to make these relationships deep, fulfilling, meaningful, mutually empowering. Somehow, this sees far more important and pressing than the idea of setting up some kind of a semi-formal CBO with management capabilities.

emerging patterns, outcomes and questions of the 6th CP Process

So, it seems like it's about time to share the progress so far with putting together the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Around 6 months have elapsed since the process started. It started with some initial discussions with the CE leading to me preparing a concept note and a presentation of the same. The framework was approved and the process began.

Now that process of consultations has just about completed and I have started the process of turning it all into a document for internal and external circulation. This blog post contains some of the things that have really struck me as being profound and meaningful in terms of process-outcomes and also strategic direction-setting. It ends with some of the questions that are now with me.

Process-outcomes

• rather than simply looking at our strategies, we were able to inquire into organisational culture (essentially our values, principles and how we relate to each other and our purpose) and structure (who sits where, holds what power, has what function and reports to who) – and many people who would usually not be so directly or openly involved in these discussions had the opportunity to contribute
• participatory process enabled critical perspectives to find voice throughout the process and feed into strategic direction-setting process enabled all parts of the organisation to see what all other parts of the organisation were doing, inquire into this and also give suggestions individual
• relationships amongst certain groups of staff have changed – more people have more of a feeling that they have had some control or influence over the course of events
• topics such as organisational culture and structure were opened to discussion by all members of staff – critical questions have been asked and important directions have emerged
• in many instances programme staff have given honest assessments of their performance and the issues that they are facing many assumptions and differences of opinion were aired in a non-confrontational manner and there have been signs of people from across various levels really changing the way they relate to each other and think about the work they are doing
• created a positive can-do attitude amongst the staff discussions were held on many sticky, frustrating and also confusing topics

Strategic direction-setting

• readying ourselves to double-up our efforts at working with the local governments (Panchayats) and also the other government departments
• pushing for the idea of federating community organisations – including village-level organisations and women's groups - at various levels
• conceptualising new staff induction as a 1 year long process rather than a 3 day workshop
  
• promoting the idea of using monitoring and evaluation as a tool for facilitating dialogue with communities about their local development process (rather than simply a way of reporting to donors)
• deciding to form a livelihood/income generation internal network cell that would bring together staff from different programmatic units (such as natural resource development, women's empowerment, and village institutions) to explore new ways of addressing what is now officially recognised as a cross-cutting issue
• more generally getting integration across programmes onto the agenda – e.g. integrating livestock and agriculture activities to give a more integrated farming systems approach
• deciding to look into the oragnisation's ecological footprint and find ways of minimising it

There are probably plenty more significant outcomes that I could present in a more structured manner after actually writing down the Comprehensive Plan. But these give the general gist of the sorts of new things that have been taking place.

Many of these – perhaps seemingly small – changes are of quite massive significance in the overall scheme of things. What is most exciting for me at the moment is that a whole bunch of decisions were taken by other people that I had dreamed about in the past. I was seeing the people around me saying the things that I had hoped they would say. I even had the experience of people saying exactly the points that I had written in my notebook. In some ways the last few months have felt like a bit of a dream. They have been intense too! I have been angry, overjoyed, frustrated, exhausted and at times almost ecstatic. The best moments have been the ones where it simply felt like everything was coming together for the best. The worst were the ones where I was wrestling with my own ego. Truly fascinating!

But I still have a lot of questions. For example, this morning in an email to the Chief Executive, I asked the following:

• How do we sustain and even deepen whatever positive changes we have seen so far?
• How do we keep open the dialogue and creativity that we have unleashed so far and make it a permanent feature of the organisation?
• How do we avoid falling back into sub-optimal patterns of relations and interactions that mitigate our effectiveness as a catalyst of positive social change?

They all seem to be getting at the same thing. My concern is that there was a kind of tipping point that we could have crossed and that we didn't quite cross it... What does this imply?

Which really leads me onto this:

One thing that people don't seem to write about is whether it is normal to see or feel things happening as part of an organisational change process in a kind of staged manner... for example, we might not have transitioned to being a 'chaordic organisation' or something of that sort but hey! we might nonetheless have moved some way towards appreciating the value of meaningful conversation, of 'getting the whole system in the room', of challenging our present limits and so on. Now for the facilitator (for want of a better word for my role), these may seem like baby steps in comparison to the strides that were dreamt of. Is this normal? Sometimes, there's a feeling that it's a kind of all-or-nothing shift – especially when we're talking about complexity, chaos, self organisation, emergence, open space and so on. But is that even fair? Sometimes it seems as though we need one of those 'paradigm shifts' or some kind of 'turn the whole thing inside out' approaches. There will, of course, be some kind of a gap perceived by the facilitator between 'what could have been' and 'what actually was'. Won't there? Other people – perhaps because they are more experienced and take it for granted – don't seem to talk about this 'gap' so much.

Having said this, a recent mail (today) on the aoh list seems to be getting at just this point.