« The Body Always Knows | Main | Happiness is... »
September 24, 2004
New Breath
Today's reading (a daunting list of articles and chapter excerpts) completely makes up for any frustration I have with our coursebook. Having finally dispensed with an introduction to the first three Sustainability Principles:
* A sustainable society must not systematically increase concentrations of materials from the Earth's crust.
* A sustainable society must not systematically increase concentrations of materials from production processes.
* A sustainable society must not systematically degrade the Earth.
We moved on to the 4th Sustainability Principle (and for me, the most intriguing, challenging, and exciting area of study):
* A sustainable society must not systematically undermine the capacity of people to meet their own needs.
Lecture by Karl-Henrik Robert discussed the main principles of social sustainability, and included the concept that the "fabric of society" depends on peoples' interdependence, self-organization, and diversity. I had trouble with the "diversity" part of the chapter, and brought it up in class--asking if the term "diversity" was really appropriate, since the text seems to emphasize individual diversity, rather than cultural diversity (which is the way people tend to think of "diversity").
This brings up a touchy subject. I am well aware that I can dominate social situations, and have even been known (insert gasp of shock here) to monopolize business meetings and classroom settings. So in the past few weeks, I've been challenging myself to stay silent during the Q&A sessions of class, and just listen to how the discussion flows around me. (I haven't been so successful in the small group sessions, where I look back and realize I might not have been an "empathetic" participant.) But then I realized that there must be a balance, and that it is ok for me to ask questions, or even challenge assumptions (my forte--but occasionally taken to extremes). So I raised my hand and asked about the use of the term "diversity". Karl-Hendrik's response was complimentary, but the best part was that I realized I had mulled this question over and over, and had refined it to a concise, intelligent question before asking it. I think that might be my problem--I tend to think about the question as I ask it. So hurrah! A lesson learned--one I'm sure I will have to learn over and over again--especially in small group discussions, where I'm sure my fellow students are praying I learn it soon.
But back to the reading--most of the articles assigned for Monday's class are on organizational leadership, organizational learning, and "deep change". I love the term "deep change" because it connotes a fundamental shift in perception that precedes true transformation. While I only read the initial chapter of the "deep change" book, I was moved by the concept of eliminating exit strategies as a way to foster real commitment. There is an ongoing discussion within my family on whether my dad should retire. He's in a difficult position--being asked to help transform his organization. This has created resentment, fear, frustration, etc. both within the organization (at all levels) and within our family, as we try to wrestle with a father who is grumpy about work, but determined to finish the job he has been given. Each night, there is a recitation of the day's challenges and a discussion about retiring (which has occurred verbatim so as to become farcical). Having read the introduction to this book, I wonder if the constant analyzing of an "exit strategy" (retirement) has hampered his ability to foster "deep change" within his organization. Interesting...
Another article I read discussed the almost incomprehensible connectedness of everything. The example of Bell's Theorum was given--in quantum physics, if you split an atom into two particles, the particles will go spinning away from each other across the universe. One particle has a positive spin, the other has a negative spin (think clockwise and counter-clockwise). Now, here's the freaky part: if you suddenly flip the direction of the spin on one particle, the other particle (floating across the universe) will simultaneouly switch the direction of its spin--thus retaining a balance of sorts. This has been proven in multiple experiments. If reactions like this occur on a subatomic level, then just imagine the implications for society in general. Not that I'm suddenly a "Global Consciousness" convert--but there is something to it, I think. At the very least, it's interesting to think about bizarre theories--like how global catastrophes can impact random number generators.
Finally, I read an article about how to engage in meaningful dialogue--not conversation, or discussion, but meaningful dialogue. Dialogue refers to a "shared pool of resources" upon which a group can draw when creating new understandings. It was quite interesting, especially as I reflected upon the material against my experience with shareholder advocacy. The article talked about how, when true understanding was reached, language is often unable to express it. It quotes the following poem from 13th century Persian poet Rumi:
Out beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing
There is a field
I will meet you there
When the soul lies down in that grass
The world is too full to talk about.
Beautiful, isn't it? There are times in life when understanding surprises you with a clarity and complexity that outstrips language altogether. I wish I had more of those moments, for each one stands out in my memory as a pivotal time.
And one final interesting Swedish tidbit--on September 27, students at BTH can get tested for chlamydia. For weeks I have walked around not understanding a single word on the ubiquitous posters on campus. Suddenly, everywhere I look is the word klamydia. Klamydia here, klamydia there, klamydia everywhere!
