ROOTS OF THIS PROJECT
The Project Summary
Our Wise Democracy Pattern Language highlights dynamic factors and design principles which can make an activity, organization or community more wisely self-governing.
Our prime directive is: We seek to evoke and engage the wisdom and resourcefulness of the whole on behalf of the whole. Our wise democracy pattern card deck enables people to explore together key factors that need attention when they seek to be wise as whole groups, communities and societies. And our wise democracy website gives them in-depth resources they can use to make it real.
Based on hundreds of real-life innovations and practices, this evolving database of wise democracy “patterns” helps us understand, re-imagine and transform the ways we manage our shared world. With this resource we can help transmute the “rapids of change” surrounding our 21st century social and environmental crises into positive possibilities and system-transforming initiatives.
THE STORY OF ITS ROOTS, EVOLUTION AND BLOSSOMING IN THE WORLD
My name is Tom Atlee. I’ve been an activist my whole life. I was raised by my activist family to think systemically and realize that what happens in the world has everything to do with me – and with everyone else! We are all involved, all the time.
My watershed experience: In 1986 I joined the Great Peace March walking across the U.S. It started out with 1200 marchers managed by a top-down nonprofit corporation – which went bankrupt two weeks later leaving the march falling apart in the Mojave Desert. 800 marchers went home. The other 400 of us spent two weeks arguing and organizing until we finally started walking again as a complex mobile community effectively led by all of us in what I learned later was “chaordic” self-organization – ongoing, alive, orderly, productive chaos. After eight months of intense living and laboring together, we marched into Washington DC with 1200 people – and were met by 15,000 people, many of whom had helped us along the way. This remarkable experience changed my life. I’d never been in a functional community of hundreds of people operating with no top-down leadership.
Peace March photos: Click them to enlarge.
A Wise Democracy Pattern Language: Together Martin and I created the remarkable wise democracy pattern language you can see at wd-pl.com that contained 70 “patterns” (aka, design guidance principles) with a beautiful set of freely downloadable cards and a gorgeous website filled with resources and examples to help people apply each pattern. I piloted a small course on the subject and slowly attracted what are now more than 300 subscribers to the project’s newsletter. But it never took off in a big way.
BREAKTHROUGH! Printed card decks – at last! – and version 2.0 is born – Late in 2018 a longtime friend and colleague had a windfall she offered as a grant to help us finally create a purchasable boxed set of cards for our wise democracy project. She suggested that if people were able to actually buy, hold and use the pattern language as a set of cards – instead of having only a website and a pdf they have to print – it would really take off at last. We accepted her offer and Martin and I took the opportunity to update, modify and expand the pattern language so it now has 96 patterns, better than ever!
Introducing the folks who will make a difference… So here we are, coming to you with open arms, inviting you to join us in making this remarkable dream come true. Through your participation and support, you can make it possible for hundreds of groups – groups of activists, organizers, students, change agents, leading-edge government officials, and more – to get solid guidance on how to make their communities, organizations and societies more participatory and effectively wise. We invite you to consider how collective wisdom is vital for addressing everything from conflicts and injustices to crises and extinction-level issues. We invite you to join us in helping to provide practical resources that can enable any group or community to generate the collective wisdom they need.
Hi, Jenny. Lovely way to start a Friday is reading what you wrote here. Including your questions? Do we start with the individual; or the collective?
The key piece of the quote you cite is, ‘…when they seek to be wise…’ Does our social structure (at the macro level) actually promote being wise? Hmmm…easy answer? Does our personal and interpersonal world (the micro level) truly promote being wise? Only individuals can answer.
Perhaps having a dialogue with one other person who ‘seeks to be wise’ is a starting point (or, approaching a meso level). These cards seem, to me, to be a useful starting point.
As Tom notes, ‘there are ways to generate collective wisdom’ all around us. He mentions ordinary people, but it is more than that. As the cards illustrate (I’m thinking here of Collecting Nodes of Life Energy; Full Spectrom Information; Microcosmos and Populations; Nature First; and a few others), wisdom may be all around us if we, using the cards, consider: Power of Listening (which, to me, suggests not just listening, but also seeing, smelling, touching, sensing in other ways). The wisdom of resilience in plants (oops…weeds, as some people call them); or trees’ sense of long life; or…well, if we just listen.
But consider what many people call ‘popular culture’ today. Does popular culture promote, or inhibit, our seeking to be wise? I cannot help but think that much (if not virtually all) of contemporary western mainstream culture is not popular, but imposed. And that imposed culture would appear to do all it can to inhibit the search for wisdom.
Do either of you know about the Fetzer Institute? They offer a set of cards, called ‘conversation cards’. The themes of the cards are simple: love; compassion; and forgiveness. Over the past few years, since first receiving my deck or cards, I have had had a good number of meaningful dialogues with these topics. But then I ask, ‘when was the last time you [meaning the person to whom I am speaking] spoke about [either love, forgiveness or compassion] with anyone?’ Generally the answer is: never.
What do most people talk about? Last week, I was on a lovely, long (well, around 80k) cycle ride with a group. We cycle in pairs. Being human beings, there is generally always a lot of chat (unless it is a steep uphill climb) and this was no exception. We chat not only with people alongside us (cycling in pairs), but also to the people in-front of, and behind. This one night, I started hearing the phrase, ‘Love Island’. Over a few minutes, I came to realise it was a teevee programme.
Not watching teevee at all, I had no idea what it was. I have since learnt.
Does the likes of ‘Love Island’ seek to explicate the search for wisdom? Does anything in imposed culture seek to do so?
I will focus on the micro and meso (quite small meso level) levels and use these cards, and the Fetzer Institute cards, and Karla McLaren’s emotions cards, as much as I can to begin an process of listening to others and seek shifting the dialogue to meaning listening contexts…
…with the next few people I meet in the world!
I’m also thrilled that we are addressing the entire scope of Tom’s card website!
brian
Thanks for this reflection, Brian. I only know of Fetzer because they sponsor On Being, which is my favorite podcast! 🙂 Krista Tippett is such an inspiration to me! Will have to check out the convo cards. I feel fortunate that I’m in many spaces where people are having deep, meaningful conversations about things that matter, and very much in connection with these patterns. I’m sure this is partly because this is what I personally seek to do where I am but also because I seek out spaces with this specific intention. I do think meaningful convo and talking about all things related to these patterns is on the rise (at least where I am!), but I hear you that mainstream culture and especially media is not where we find it. Still sitting with Tom’s response that there are ways to generate collective wisdom without individuals necessarily being at any place developmentally……I want to believe this and will keep on the search for understanding and exploring examples that bring it more to life for me.
Hi, Jenny.
Those Fetzer conversation cards a really good. If you contact them, they generally send out 2 copies of the printed cards. I have done so 4 times. However, I only have one set in my hands, as I have passed the cards to other people. I know of others, in Ireland, who have also ordered, received and use the cards.
You should feel very quite fortunate that you are in spaces where people are have deep, meaningful conversatiosn about things that matter. Specifically in relation to these patterns. May such gatherings flourish. I attempt those dialogues, and oftimes fail. There IS a conversation, but social factors (not personal, necessarily) bring them back to other topics. There does seem to be a strong social force against wisdom. I read a small book a few years ago titled, ‘Attention Merchants’ (sorry, I cannot remember the author’s name) which documented media that developed over the 20th century, into the 21st century, and how much of strove to grab and manipulate our attention.
A few years ago, at a small academic conference, I used the word ‘wisdom’ at some point (and I really do not remember the point I was trying to make). One man, an academic I’d been reading for a good few years, and a man who had written some solid critical essays and books, blurted out, ‘Wisdom; what is wisdom?…can you even define wisdom?’ I was astonished–I honestly thought he would have supported me. My response was that I may not be able to define wisdom, and certainly do not claim I am wise, but should that stop me from searching for it?
I’m sorry I have not met that man since.
I very much agree with Tom’s point that, ‘there are ways to generate collective wisdom without individuals being at any place developmentally…’ really. Wisdom may not begin with, or within, one pesron, but this point highlights the co-creative orientation of wisdom. I do believe that!
Let’s continue searching for understanding (and these cards a worthy thinking and sharing point) and exploring examples that bring wisdom to life.
Oh, time to tend to the donkeys. The morning braying has begun.
Hmmm…what wisdom might the donkeys offer? After almost 15 years of living with them (well, they are in the field and we are in the house, but you know what I mean), I can tell you lots, and lots of wisdom emanates from their every pore! And, please, do not get my started on the dogs…
Stay well, Jenny.
brian
You and Jenny and others may be interested in the Co-Intelligence Institute page on Wisdom, which contains my overall perspective about wisdom and a number of my articles on the subject, including a survey about wisdom I did 18 years ago on some “Cultural Creative” opinion leaders. It also includes a “Sources of Wisdom” article from many years ago that I did not consult when I wrote the “Sources of Wisdom” article for my wise democracy theory. Both the similarities and differences fascinate me now 🙂 !
As I write elsewhere, my definition of wisdom FOR THIS PROJECT is taking into account what needs to be taken into account for long-term broad benefit (or the capacity to do that). That definition is particularly useful when we’re talking about generating collective wisdom at the social-systemic level (as in “wise democracy”). The nuances of applying that definition are described in the “4 Guidelines for a 3D Wise Democracy” essay near the bottom of the Introduction page re wise democracy theory (the 3D Democracy drop-down menu at the top of this page).
I’ve been thinking (ruminating) about this particular point you’ve both mentioned for a few days now: “there are ways to generate collective wisdom without individuals being at any place developmentally”……and I’m really struggling with it. Tom, I know you shared an example with me when we spoke last. I’d welcome any other examples or places I can look to see how this has happened and can be made possible. In reflecting on my own personal lived experiences, I’m struggling to find examples of times I can say collective wisdom or action has been generated from a group who did not themselves (or at least their leadership) embody the wisdom on an individual level. I’m trying to stay humble here….more to learn…I welcome your continued engagement on this particular possibility.
This is a biggie, Jenny. Fasten your seatbelt….
First I should acknowledge that when we deal with extremely low levels of awareness, sanity and cognitive capacity, we may have serious difficulties generating collective wisdom. But that’s an extreme situation. In more average situations, individual and collective capacities vary independently from each other. Primary examples are groups of brilliant people who get in each other’s way so well that their collective intelligence looks more like co-stupidity (examples of which we see in every sector) or the phenomenon of “groupthink” which arose out of a study of the Kennedy administration’s disastrous CIA invasion of Cuba.
But for our purposes here, we first need to remember our project’s definition of wisdom. We’re not talking Buddha and Socrates here. We’re talking about “taking into account what needs to be taken into account for long-term broad benefit”. This definition is one we can work with for wiser handling of public affairs.
Currently no one outside of this project uses this definition. So any examples here have not been examined by experts to determine their wisdom. Furthermore, in practice, one can take into account more or less of various factors and have various assumptions about the meaning of “long-term” and “broad” (and even “benefit”). So “wisdom” is a relative term, a workable ideal we can strive towards in our politics and governance, like “justice” or “freedom”.
That said, here are some examples to consider:
Examples from my Great Peace March experience:
It All Began in a Fertilizer Factory
https://www.co-intelligence.org/S-fertilizerfactory.html
Circles and Dress Codes
https://www.co-intelligence.org/S-pcmrchcircle.html
Examples from citizen deliberations
Civic Councils in Austria
https://diapraxis.com/home/translations-of-germanlanguage-resources-on-df-and-cccs
Chapter 13 of the Tao of Democracy
https://bit.ly/2lNKxYt
But regarding the issue you raise about the extent to which we need “wise people” to make wise decisions, I realize that I’ve been operating on a bit of theory I’ve never articulated before. So here goes:
Consider the four influences below as sources of (and/or “embodiments”) of wisdom:
1. Paradigms, narratives, assumptions, etc. – energized “fields” of orienting beliefs;
2. Structures, processes, practices, etc. – “systems” phenomena: how things are set up and function [“Culture” can be considered a combination of 1 and 2];
3. Leaders, facilitators, elders, managers, designers – people who shape what happens next and how it is viewed; and
4. Participant(s) – those involved in the activity, enterprise, community, etc.
All of these influences shape what happens. For each of these, in any given situation, we can ask: To what extent does it enable information, perspectives, ideas, possibilities, relationships, and so on to be heard and considered and to interact to generate something greater and better than any of the elements could have generated separately? (Note that this capacity is necessary for us to achieve our definition of wisdom.)
Ideally, all four of these influences would be aligned, inclined, and capable in that wisdom-generating effort. But the main point I want to make is that any of the influences “higher” in this list [lower numbers] could theoretically “enable information, perspectives, ideas, possibilities, relationships, and so on” to be addressed well by the influences “lower” on the list in ways that “generate something greater and better”.
So we can, for example, imagine (as you and many people do) a group in which all or a majority of the members are enlightened and capable of wisdom-generation thanks to their high level of consciousness and development. But if we engage a particularly capable and enlightened facilitator who enhances the group’s capacity to listen to each other and to process information together, the participants themselves do not have to be so enlightened to serve the wisdom-generating function we’re talking about.
Further, wisdom-generation can also be achieved by ordinary people if we have a powerfully generative (wisdom-generating) process guided by a facilitator who, though far from enlightened, can facilitate that process with competence and nuance. Beyond that, if everyone involved is immersed in a widely held paradigm and culture of “wise democracy”, that would tend to shape everyone and every activity within it in ways that facilitated wisdom-generation (in contrast to our current paradigm that sees us as separate actors competing in political, economic, and all other spheres, undermining our ability to generate wisdom together).
Consider the many examples of citizen deliberation that use random selection (see the Sortition pattern). In those deliberative bodies, we wouldn’t expect any more than a random level of “development” or “enlightenment” or “wisdom” among their randomly selected participants. But under the influence of good process and facilitation, they more often than not collectively arrive at solutions that can be considered wise – or at least far wiser than the default mainstream approach to the issue involved.
Finally, if we define wisdom as “taking into account what needs to be taken into account for longterm broad benefit”, we run into the inevitable limits on what any individual can adequately take into account. In contrast, a COLLECTIVE (group, community, network, etc.) theoretically has a far greater cognitive embrace IF – and this is A BIG IF – they “enable information, perspectives, ideas, possibilities, relationships, and so on to be heard and considered and to interact to generate something greater and better”. Together we CAN be wiser than any of us can be alone. BUT we need to know how to tap that wisdom. We can use this pattern language to do that better and better and better.
Does that make sense?
There was no reply button available next to your comment to this, so I’m commenting here…..yes, parts of your response make sense and parts I’m still trying to process (and I need to go through the examples with more time). What I took from the theory you’ve been operating from is that in order to tap this collective wisdom, we do need skilled and competent facilitators (which does require a certain developmental level), as well as useful tools (like these cards), among other things….
I must admit that I feel frustrated that your response doesn’t make more intuitive or rational sense to me after reading and re-reading several times. Two things I’m noticing, just as I try to process this and additional related learning:
1. The language we’re using here feels inaccessible to me at times. I don’t mean this as a criticism and I appreciate it to a certain extent because it’s challenging me to really dig deep. But I do wonder how much of the general population would be able to process and understand the concepts here? My sense is that it would be a challenge for many people, as it is for me.
2. While the language itself could be simplified (maybe) I think part of the challenge I feel in my brain is simply the challenge of engaging with concepts that feel “foreign” and that I haven’t worked with in tangible ways before. I can tell that my brain isn’t used to this, even though I consider myself someone who is working at the edges with participatory engagement and outside of what’s mainstream….I’m not sure what to do with this other than continue to try to find ways to practice to stretch my thinking and other ways of knowing/learning in new ways.
1. In general, I’d say you are right re facilitators, Jenny, especially in our problematic political culture. The more complex or nuanced the process and the more challenging the group and the circumstances, the more skilled and developed the facilitator needs to be. But there are powerful processes like the World Cafe, Circle Process and Open Space which, under good conditions, can be facilitated by ordinary newbies using a guidebook (or their own experience of it) with fabulous results – and such processes are strategically important as we try to move forward developing a culture of collective wisdom with limited resources.
2. I’ll be interested in sometime teasing out the problems with the parts of what I write that don’t make sense to you. The fault can easily be in my own issues as a writer, or because I am too immersed in this alternative paradigm to communicate it well for others, or simply because the paradigm itself is invisible/inaccessible to people who haven’t had particular experiences (like trying to describe mystical experiences to serious materialists). I think all of these issues can be addressed, however, with more communication and efforts to hear each other, which I hope we can do.
3. The pattern language itself can actually be used as a wise democracy jargon – a language to rapidly communicate nuanced meanings to other people working in the field which may be opaque to people outside the field (it took years for me to understand academic jargon words like epistemic and normative!). It’s a blessing-and-a-curse phenomenon.
4. In a few cases I have combined two already big ideas (like Glocalness and Subsidiarity) into one even bigger idea that might be best separated out in version 3.0. This could be true in any number of other cases. These version 2.0 patterns are not set in stone.
5. I didn’t write this WDPL for the general population. I’m not sure ANYTHING I’ve written – even when I’ve tried hard – really qualifies for that. I hope that someday I/we will find people able to (a) understand what is actually being talked about here and (b) to translate it for all the various audiences that would benefit. I have a hunch maybe you are one of those people, Jenny, and that your “beginners mind” puzzlement could be a blessing in that endeavor (ref the Using Diversity and Disturbance Creatively pattern).
I think this is a powerful description of what this pattern language makes possible: it “enables people to explore together key factors that need attention when they seek to be wise as whole groups, communities and societies.” I’m curious: do you think people also need to explore what needs attention to be wise individually before or at the same time they seek to be part of a wise group or community? Or is it possible for wise groups and communities to emerge without individuals tending to themselves on a personal level first?
The more wise, aware, informed, enlightened individuals are, the more they can contribute to collective wisdom (as long as they can be resonant with the group and the group with them!). However, one of the hopeful things about the materials in this pattern language is that there are ways to generate collective wisdom from ordinary people, at ordinary levels of awareness and development. This saves us from needing to enlighten and educate all 7+ billion people in the world – 🙂 – which is a great efficiency!