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!