 ‘All grown-ups were once children... but only few of them remember it.’ (The Little Prince) Available in over 600 languages and dialects worldwide: after the Bible, The Little Prince is apparently the 2nd most-translated book in the world. I was first given a copy back in my early 20s by a close German friend, Rudi. He saw beauty and magic in the story that was, on reading it, to entrance me too. More recently, I was invited by Jasmin to use The Little Prince as a sample reader-response resource for Development Communication students in the Philippines. In advance of each seminar, I invite the students to read a section of the book and then to engage in a conversation with me about its potential meanings, its significance in their personal-cultural contexts and its practical applications in their lives and work. Questions included: ‘The narrator says that adults need everything explained to them. Do young people and adults see the world differently? What might young people notice that adults overlook?’ In today’s seminar, we explored, ‘The Little Prince’s home is a tiny asteroid. What places, communities or relationships make up your world?’ – to which they immediately identified, and unequivocally prioritised, ‘family’, alongside other people and features. We also explored, ‘The Little Prince takes care of his tiny planet by removing the young baobabs before they become dangerous. What small problems in your community could become much bigger if ignored?’ The questions with greatest personal resonance for these DevCom students included: ‘If you were to meet the Little Prince today, what would you want to ask him – and what would you want to understand about his world before trying to communicate with him?’ And, ‘If you were to meet him, what would he ask you?’ One (an artist) said, ‘Draw me a better sheep!’ Another, ‘Have you stayed true to your childhood dreams – or have you become too compromised?’
8 Comments
 ‘When beginning to work in a new way, a golden rule is to go slowly and take small steps.’ (Catherine Widdicombe) This week’s webinar with DevCom students in the Philippines focused on the ‘Non-Directive Approach’, pioneered in the early days of community development by Reg and Madge Batten and adapted subsequently by Catherine Widdicombe and George Lovell, founders of AVEC. We looked at distinctions between directive (doing to/doing for); non-directive (doing with/enabling others to do for themselves) and positive withdrawal (stepping back/not stepping in) as potential intervention strategies, depending on the specific needs or aspirations of individuals or groups. We looked at different scenarios in which students have witnessed or used each approach, including the rationale for choosing them and what the potential pros and cons are, especially if used or over-used as a default (e.g. directive – useful in emergencies or where new knowledge is needed, risk of learned helplessness; non-directive – useful to enhance agency, risk of domination by powerful actors; positive withdrawal – useful to build confidence, risk of feeling abandoned). A key question each begs is ‘what approach would be most beneficial for this individual or group in this situation at this time?’ More complex underlying questions include, ‘who decides what is beneficial?’, ‘who gets to decide which approach is appropriate?’ and ‘how are such decisions reached?’ The answers to such questions are rooted deeply in, for instance, specific contextual cultures, beliefs, values, norms and expectations. This calls for those engaged in development to be aware of their own assumptions if they are to order to avoid unwittingly imposing them on others.  ‘Make better decisions, willingly.’ (Vianzzi) This week’s workshop with grassroots Filipina activists focused on influence – what it is and how to do it. I liked student Vianzzi’s concise summary (above) of the goal of influencing others in the advocacy arena. A key word for me is ‘willingly’, which points towards motivation and choice. When seeking to influence, I’m hoping to evoke something in another person or group – a fresh insight, for instance – that leads to a free change in their own decisions, directions and actions. Student Chrisha highlighted the importance of clarity of intention. For instance, before presenting a case or a call to action, to clarify (not least for myself) in advance: What do I want my audience to know; how do I want them to feel; what do I want them to do? The students also emphasised the cultural-relational importance of valuing their hearers; seeking to understand and respect their interests, hopes and concerns; and modelling personal integrity to build and sustain trust.  ‘Be an inconvenience.’ (Bill Bontigao) I met with some incredibly impressive Filipina students this morning who are studying Development & Communications with a vision to transform their society in the future. I was struck by their depth of understanding of complex social, political and environmental issues and their passion to make a tangible difference in the world. Wow. It provoked me to reflect on my own life at their age, and my own work now. Our conversation was based around Greenpeace founder, Bob Hunter’s, five key principles to influence radical change: Plant a Mind Bomb; Put your Body where your Mouth is; Fear Success; The Revolution will not be Organised; Let the Power go. We discussed what these principles mean and call for in practice; where they have witnessed or experienced them in real life; their validity in the world today; and how to apply them. It begged the important question of how far individual activists can impact societies and beyond. As examples, we looked at Greta Thunberg’s early activism; Jasmin’s role modelling and impact in the Philippines; how God chooses seemingly insignificant people (including John and Jesus Christ) and achieves amazing things through them. Our lives and actions can create ripple effects we could never anticipate or imagine.  ‘Democracies have no obligation to facilitate their own demise. Fascists can only succeed in conditions of excessive democratic tolerance.’ (Karl Loewenstein) As a teenage anti-Nazi activist in the UK, I can remember arguing vociferously that hard right parties like the British National Party and National Front should be banned. A wise older person disagreed with me, suggesting that banning parties simply drives them underground, out of view, and that makes them even more dangerous. He had a point. It’s a tough dilemma for democratic societies – one we face again now when UK society, like others throughout the West, is increasingly polarised between hard right nationalists, hard left progressives and ethnic sectarianism. The centre ground is losing ground and grasping weakly at paper straws to survive. The UK government has tried various tactics to address this, at times mimicking the hard right to appeal to voters on that front, then swinging towards the hard left in an attempt to appease voters heading in that direction. It looks chaotic, often driven more by pragmatic expediency than vision and values and, paradoxically, adds to the attraction of the extremes who appear far clearer, more principled and more decisive. The government also tried silencing free speech via police Non-Crime Hate Incident recording then, after widespread public backlash, repackaged elements in a counterproductive ‘Anti-Muslim Hostility’ definition that even Muslim leaders opposed. This level of instability and uncertainty, with its associated anxieties and risks, is driving some of those balancing precariously on the residual centre ground to argue that urgent and muscular action is needed to defend democracy itself (see, for instance, Paul Mason: Britain Needs Militant Democracy). I see profound resonances here in Germany (where I’m writing at the moment) with its dark history of fascism, where the Nazi party seized power by manipulating the liberal-democratic process to its own advantage – then subsequently dismantled it. German democrats are wringing their hands helplessly as they watch the rise of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The hard left here argues that, if Germans had been more forceful (using violence, if necessary) to crush the Nazi party before it got into power, Germany and the wider world would have been spared the unspeakable horrors of the Third Reich. It’s a compelling argument until we question, along with Mahatma Gandhi, whether using violent means to achieve a non-violent end is ethically defensible and effective practically. Martin Luther King cautions that ‘The ends cannot be used to justify the means because the ends are pre-existent in the means’. I pray for wisdom and courage in the face of such challenges. Democracy itself hangs in the balance.  ‘Our work can be a calling only if it is reimagined as a mission of service to something beyond merely our own interests.’ (Timothy Keller) I met with a small and enthusiastic group of college students in the Philippines this morning. As part of their studies, they have been learning about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Jasmin, their tutor, invited me to share my experiences of working in some of those countries. They were keen to learn about my life and work too, as people whose careers still lay ahead of them. I was able to share glimpses of my diverse experiences in Cambodia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. I was also able to share some of the varied roles in my own life and career to date including: community development, human rights, English teacher, Baptist minister, trainer, leader/manager, international development, organisation development and psychological coach. To help the students relate to these experiences, I invited them each to imagine themselves in one of these roles and to consider: 1. Who would you serve or help? 2. What problems would you try to solve? 3. What attitudes and skills would you need? 4. What might be difficult about it? 5. What would you enjoy most? I was impressed by their level of awareness and how easily they were able to do this. I was also struck by how well they related these roles to their own career aspirations, such as in leadership and management, community development or care and counselling. An underlying recurring theme was their desire to help others in need, to improve the quality of other people’s lives, to make a difference for good in the world. This desire to live their mission and values impressed me too. At the end, one young woman asked me, ‘What have you learned in life?’ She was curious to hear what words of wisdom I could offer them, given my own background. I offered them my 3 guiding principles, the core I have discovered as key to all aspects of my own life and work: ‘Prayer, Presence, Participation’. Bottom line: ‘Follow the call God has placed in your heart – and trust him for all you need.’ Would you like help to explore your career and calling? Get in touch!  ‘Our deeds determine us, as much as we determine our deeds.’ (George Eliot) Mike is a role model of vision, compassion and integrity. I’ve rarely met anyone like him. In fact, he’s one of the most amazing leaders, line-managers, I’ve ever had the privilege of working with. It was all the more heartbreaking, therefore, to see him treated disrespectfully by an executive team and dismissed (in my view) unjustifiably from post. This was some years ago now yet I still feel a wince of pain whenever I remember it. At the time, I asked Mike how he managed to handle himself so honourably in the face of such harsh opposition. He replied simply that he had been reading the account of Joseph in the Bible and had concluded that, ‘They can take your job, they can take your income, but they can never take your integrity. That’s only yours to give. Remember, Nick – whatever happens in life, guard your integrity.’ Wow. Such courage under fire. The day of Mike’s leaving arrived and people crowded into the staff room to say goodbye to this man that so many had held in high esteem. The executive team stood at the side with their backs to the wall, looking tense and nervous. What might Mike say? Could it kick off a riot? Mike looked around the room, smiled gently and said, ‘The executive team are ordinary people who carry extraordinary responsibilities. Pray for them.’ It was absolutely astonishing. People looked at each other quizzically around the room, and the executives breathed a (somewhat surprised) sigh of relief. Mike said those words with such incredible empathy and kindness. Not a hint of resentment or revenge. Mike’s wife had joined him for the leaving do and they closed by standing in the centre of the room together, holding hands, and sang a gospel song about trusting in Jesus.  ‘Every border I crossed blurred another line inside me, between who I was and who I was becoming.’ (Yoon Jeong Kim) When I trained to be an English teacher for speakers of other languages, one of the things we discussed was to look out for was false friends, also called false cognates. These are words from different languages that appear similar yet have very different meanings. An example is the word ‘sensible’ which means something like ‘reasonable’ in English, but ‘sensitive’ in Spanish. A risk for language learners is that they assume that familiar, similar-sounding words, phrases or even gestures used by others carry the same meanings as their own, and that can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. Language and culture are closely-linked, and similar risks can occur when we meet or work with people from different cultural backgrounds. We may assume that others’ similar behaviours carry the same meaning as ours, or assume that different behaviours of others mean the same as they would in our own culture. An example is nodding or saying ‘Yes’ which in many Western cultures would signal ‘I agree’ or ‘I consent’, whereas in many Eastern cultures it could mean ‘I hear you’ or ‘I understand what you are saying’. In some Eastern and African cultures it could simply be a sign of respect. Given the potential for confusion, consternation, embarrassment or frustration, I try to approach cross-cultural conversations and relationships in a spirit of curiosity. If a person or group from another culture says or does something (especially if this is a recurring pattern) that confuses, surprises or jars me, I try to pause, breathe, suspend my own judgement (based on my own cultural values) and inquire tentatively what it could mean for them. I encourage them to do the same with me. This isn’t always easy and often calls for prayer, humility and patience, yet the benefits can be immeasurable.  ‘I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.’ ‘I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I said.’ (Alan Greenspan) You may have had that experience of communicating something you thought was perfectly clear, only to discover that the other person got the completely wrong end of the proverbial stick. How is that possible? Was it something in what you said or, perhaps, how you said it that influenced how the message was received, distorted or misunderstood? Whatever the cause, when it does happen, you can both feel bemused, confused or frustrated – and the consequences can be difficult, damaging or dangerous. I want to suggest this occurs mainly as a result of mismatched beliefs, values, assumptions and emotions in four critical areas: language, culture, context and relationship. There are, of course, situations in which a person may wilfully misinterpret what you said or simply choose to ignore you. However, I’m thinking more here about when it happens inadvertently and out of awareness. It’s something about what influences (a) what we infer and (b) how we interpret, when we communicate – so that we can improve it. The language question means the same words can mean different things to different people, even in the same language group. The culture question means the assumptions I make appear obvious or self-evident in the groups or teams I belong to. The context question means I interpret what you say based on my own perspective and understanding of the situation. The relationship question means I filter what you say based on what I perceive and feel about the nature, dynamics and quality of our relationship. So – this where a spirit of inquiry can help: Check what the other has heard and understood. Notice the language they use. Be curious about their cultural and contextual perspectives. Sense and explore how they are feeling. Build trust.  ‘Reflexivity is our own self-reflection in the meaning-making process.’ (Margaret Kovach) It’s a bit like looking in a mirror. When I look at any situation and myself in relation to it (e.g. who or what I’m focusing on (and not); how I’m feeling; the stance I’m taking), what could it reveal about me?’ If I grow in awareness by responding honestly to such questions, it could enable me to grow in authenticity and open up fresh insights and ideas for action. Example: ‘My team colleague is under-performing and I’m frustrated with her laziness. It annoys me that I have to do extra work to make sure we don’t miss deadlines.’ On the face of it, it sounds like a simple description of my colleague’s behaviour and impact. Yet what reflexive insights could this reveal about me (and, perhaps, my broader cultural environment too)? Let's think. It could, for instance, say something implicitly about my own beliefs; assumptions; values; filters; expectations; hopes; preferences; fears; norms or needs. (I could, critically, substitute ‘own’ with ‘cultural’ in that list – it’s about me, but it’s not only about me.) By coaching a person to work reflexively in this way, they can choose afresh how to respond. |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! 
Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|
RSS Feed