Red flags

23/3/2022

‘Instead of singing the same song in different ways, we need to learn to sing a new song.’ (Nancy Akanbombire)

I took part in a fascinating international webinar this afternoon organised by INTRAC: ‘Shifting the Power through Organisation Development’. It called for fundamental shifts in the ways in which we perceive ourselves, others and our work, particularly as consultants engaged with civil society and civil society organisations (CSOs) throughout the world. It also challenged us to examine our stance and approach by applying critical reflection and critical reflexivity to our relationships and practice. Underlying values of humility, courage, curiosity, engagement and co-creation shone throughout.

The overriding theme, which extends well beyond organisation development (OD) and our work with CSOs, was how to make a paradigm shift that enables sustainable transformation. This is a big question and one that we now face urgently in so many different contexts globally. Our tried-and-tested ways of thinking about, construing and addressing situations are somehow leading us into disaster after disaster – and the stakes couldn’t be higher. This ought to be raising some serious red flags, not just Ukrainian flags: and the fact that it isn’t should be cautioning us to think very hard.

Take, for instance, the devastating war in Ukraine that risks disastrous consequences for the lowest-income countries where fuel, energy and food security are already at crisis point, yet our gaze is fixed on Europe. Take the climate emergency that still threatens to kill the entire world, yet captures our attention for a brief moment then slips back to the fringe. Take the on-going Covid crisis with risks of a variant emerging from anywhere that could wipe out all of humanity, yet only 1% of people in the poorest countries have yet been vaccinated. What powers and vested interests lay hidden here?

I raised a red flag with some friends this week: ‘Why are we putting up Ukrainian flags everywhere, and not Russian flags?’ The response was instinctive and immediate: ‘Firstly, we want so show solidarity with Ukraine that is on the receiving end of a brutal and unjustified attack by Russia. Secondly, if we put up Russian flags, it would look like we’re supporting Putin.’ I get it. So, I asked a second question: ‘So what about showing solidarity too with the Russian people who are proud to be Russian, who are horrified by Putin’s war and who are also suffering terribly for showing dissent?’

The room fell silent. Now, a third question: ‘This war - how did we get here?’ Again, an instinctive response: ‘Russia’s aggression.’ The Russian military is aggressive in Ukraine, and the Russian police is aggressive in Russia. Yet that’s an answer to a different question. ‘Do you think NATO expansion to Russia’s borders could have been an influencing factor?’ One frustrated person came straight back at me angrily: ‘You’re acting like a spokesperson for the Kremlin.’ I had touched on a nerve, a boundary: what is acceptable to think, what I’m allowed to ask. Yet this itself is the real learning edge.

So – why do we shrink back? Why do we allow simplistic answers, binary narratives and biased judgements to so easily dominate our discourse; and why do we work so hard to defend them? Why is implicit or explicit silencing so prevalent, including in democratic societies that depend on critical debate as a core value, learning opportunity and safeguarding mechanism? The scale and complexity of the issues we face can evoke anxiety, and to face the fear can feel threatening. We retreat to where it feel familiar and safe: where red flags are torn down – and that could be our undoing.

20 Comments

Alex

23/3/2022 09:35:50 pm

Thanks for another thought challenger Nick.

For me you’ve highlighted a tension that I certainly don’t find easy to navigate. Keeping curious and reflexive rather than settling for quick judgements, while at the same time having the courage to speak up for and live out my values rather than settling for noncommittal and ambivalence dressed up as impartiality critical thinking.

Might NATO’s choices have had an impact on Putin’s thinking? Possibly. Does that in any way justify his actions? Categorically not. Nothing justifies it. And to my mind, any blame being ascribed to NATO gets into the territory of a judge telling a woman who’s been assaulted that she shouldn’t have been wearing what she was. Let’s not go there.

So let’s keep reflexive and curious. And let’s name injustices wherever they are - climate injustices or war crimes.

I have the deepest compassion for the Russian people, like many had for Germans who were oblivious to what Hitler was doing. One day they’ll know the lies they’ve been told and the war crimes committed in their name. And I expect at that point there’ll be overwhelming compassion for Russians. Hopefully, compassion that goes beyond flag flying, of whatever colour!

Nick Wright

23/3/2022 10:32:04 pm

Thank you, Alex. I agree wholeheartedly and that is, in my view a very fundamental difference between, say, critical reflexivity and moral relativism. (Harry Nilsson challenged the latter satirically in his comment that, 'a point in every direction is the same as no point at all.') To engage in critical reflection and critical reflexivity is of itself to take a stance. It is, however, a stance that refuses to take critically-important issues at face value. It leads, in my experience, to thoughtful engagement, personal agency and determined action.

It can, however, sometimes carry considerable personal cost - as dissenters in Russia are discovering so painfully at the hands of Putin's increasingly oppressive police state. Supertramp's Logical Song has always resonated deeply for me in this regard: 'watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal...' I certainly wouldn't want to advocate passive ambivalence, a shrug-of-the-shoulders 'it all depends' or feign neutrality in the face of vulnerability, suffering and injustice. Quite the opposite.

Incidentally, on the themes of critical reflection and taking a stance, these short related pieces may be of interest?

*Strike a pose: https://www.nick-wright.com/strike-a-pose1.html
*Do no harm: https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/do-no-harm
*Bubbles: https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/bubbles

Elise Van Vessem

23/3/2022 11:43:41 pm

Hmm...lots there and honestly, this whole Russian invasion situation is way beyond my comprehension. The media is unreliable and untrustworthy in my opinion and I no longer believe everything I'm told. Took me most of my life to get to that point 😂. The paradigm paragraph at the end resonates very much as the past two years I've worked very hard to understand how mine were established, not to mention comprehending what a paradigm was in the first place 😂😂. Lots of tears and anxiety have resulted since starting to undo them and re-learn.

24/3/2022 05:58:20 am

Hi Elise. Thank you for responding so openly and personally. To be honest, I find the Russian invasion situation pretty incomprehensible too. I commented in that vein in another blog recently (Dare to question: 8 March 2022) that, 'Geopolitics is like a game of chess in which half the pieces are invisible and nothing is what it seems.'

We can only see what lays on the surface, what the media conveys to us - selectively, and how - with implicit agendas; and that isn't enough to enable us to know and understand anything so complex. Denzel Washington summarised this so well: 'If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed, if you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed.'

It's one reason why it can be and feel so much easier, so much less exhausting, to simply take things at face value and get on with our lives. It's also one reason why films such as The Matrix and Vanilla Sky were so provocative: whether to choose comfortable delusion over uncomfortable reality.

Well done for embarking on your own personal journey of critical reflexivity. 'Lots of tears and anxiety have resulted since starting to undo them and re-learn.' I think that's why it takes curiosity, courage and humility - and the support and challenge of compassionate others who are willing to accompany us on that difficult yet so-important journey.

24/3/2022 10:01:29 am

Thank you, I agree with the Denzel Washington quote and to be honest, that's the quandary that I live with. People are very quick to bark "educate yourself!", but how does one go about that when the data is skewed and/or flawed?

24/3/2022 06:39:17 pm

Hi Elise. That is such an important question - and highlights a perplexing challenge we face when trying to work out 'what is really going on here?' There is no simple answer that I've discovered or am aware of! In case of interest, here are some of the things I try to do in this area:

*Watch, read and listen to 'news' from diverse perspectives; not just from those that I would instinctively agree with. One of the most critically-reflective news channels I watch in the UK is Al Jazeera. It tries to present international news from the perspective of those who are poorest and most vulnerable in the world. That is very different to the mainstream channels.

*Whatever 'news' I watch, read or listen to, I ask myself some basic critical questions. For example: 1. What is this particular channel, journalist, presenter or 'news' item trying to convince me to: (a) think, (b), feel and (c) do? 2. Who stands to benefit most if I do think, feel and do in that way? 3. What would someone from the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the world notice, think, feel and do in response to this same 'report'?

I network extensively and internationally, including via social media and blogs like this one, to share and invite as diverse a range of insights, questions and perspectives as possible. I also have a mentor whose role is actively to challenge my hypotheses, assumptions, stance etc. when engaging with these issues. Thank you for being willing to contribute to this critical-reflective conversation too!

Angela Sanderson

24/3/2022 05:28:51 am

Hi Nick. You see things differently to most other people and, although I don’t always agree with you, it’s so important that at least one person speaks out in the way that you do. You challenge our hearts as well as our minds, urging us not simply to stand and reflect but to act now and make a difference in this world.

You are right to highlight the hidden impacts of so many issues, decisions and actions on the poorest people and countries. It takes courage and commitment to open our eyes to see what we don’t normally see, or what we don’t really want to see.

That’s because if we were to take what you are writing about seriously, it would send shockwaves through our lives. It's a lot easier to go with the mainstream flow - and to waste our lives without knowing it.

24/3/2022 05:41:47 am

Thank you, Angela, for such encouraging feedback. As a follower of Jesus and in terms of my own perspective, motivation and stance, I find that these words from Jürgen Moltmann resonate deeply with me:

'Those who hope in Christ can no longer put up with reality as it is, but begin to suffer under it and to oppose it...Because I believe in eternal life, I shall be active for the life of the people. Because I hope in the resurrection, I shall take part in the revolt of the people against deadly oppressive powers.'

These simple words from the Bible inspire me too: 'Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.' (Proverbs 16 vs 19) And God, talking about someone: 'He defended the cause of the poor and needy. Is that not what it means to know me?' (Jeremiah 22:16)

Hans Vogel

24/3/2022 06:14:32 am

Why did you write this? Do you think you’re the only one who can see the world for what it is?

24/3/2022 11:33:04 am

Hi Hans. That's a good question and a fair challenge. In response to your first question: As a follower of Jesus, I have devoted my life to trying, in whatever ways I can, to make a positive and tangible difference in the lives of people who are poorest and most vulnerable in the world. This means contributing as well as I can to addressing the causes as well as the effects of poverty and vulnerability. I write both to share insights, ideas and questions that strike me as important, and to invite others to share their own insights, ideas and questions too. In this way, the blog seeks to open a co-creative conversation where I, alongside others, can think, learn, love and take a stance for good in the world.

I know it's only a tiny contribution in the huge, grand scale of things - yet I believe that every voice counts...just as every life counts. In God's kingdom, small things can become big things. I listen, speak, pray, trust...and live with hope.

Your second question is more complex to answer. I don't believe I can see the world for what it is. This is, firstly, because the world is too dynamically complex for anyone (other than God) to fully know and understand, particularly when we think in terms of human systems such as culture, politics and economics. This calls for us to live 'in the question' (if this is of further interest, see: https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/in-the-question) and to engage in diverse conversations marked by curiosity, humility and courage with others. Nancy - whom I quoted at the start of this blog - comments: 'Knowledge exists at all levels and in all places'.

Secondly, much of what we regard as 'self-evidently' real or true is personally- and culturally-constructed, rather than a definitive observation or description of 'what is' per se. This, again, means that I can't see the world for 'what it is' - because the idea itself can be regarded as essentially meaningless. (Incidentally, the same applies in conversations about God. I like Kant's reflection that 'God reveals himself objectively but we experience him subjectively'). There is a reality, a truth, but we perceive and experience it through a dynamically-complex web of filters. (If interested to look into this further, have a glance at Kenneth Gergen's mind-bending explanation in this short video, starting at 3 mins 5 secs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AsKFFX9Ib0&t=274s)

The question, the challenge and the imperative for me is how to hold my own hypotheses and assumptions lightly - to open them to question and further insight - whilst also taking a firm and action-orientated ethical stance in the world. I realise this has probably been a longer answer to your questions than you had been asking for(!) - and that I may not have addressed your underlying questions or concerns - yet thank you for posing them to help me reflect as I try my best, in my own stumbling and clumsy way at times, to live in a way that feels authentic and worthwhile.

24/3/2022 12:35:07 pm

Are you aware of how self-righteous and arrogant you come across as when you say that? You think you are better and brighter than the rest of us.

24/3/2022 12:37:06 pm

Thank you, Hans. It feels like you have offered me the gift of a mirror, in which to see my own reflection more clearly. I promise to take a long, hard gaze into it. 🙏

Rick James

24/3/2022 04:55:40 pm

That’s agile responding Nick – I’m wondering if we need a different song, or the determination to keep singing, harmonising, collaborating, improvising, adding to, translating…. the same song (of justice and love)?

24/3/2022 06:57:34 pm

Hi Rick. That's a good question. You reminded me, by analogy, of Calvin Miller's trilogy: 'The Singer; The Song; The Finale'. Are you familiar with it? The Singer is a representation of Jesus and the Song of the gospel. The core message and values of the gospel never change, but how they are expressed and contextualised in different times and situations does.

Justice and love strike me as examples of core values that can manifest themselves differently in different situations and relationships. It sounded like Nancy was advocating a fundamental paradigm shift, specifically in terms of power relations in civil society and between its various actors. Whether that represents a shift in core values too is an interesting question for me to ponder further..!

Haven

24/3/2022 07:05:01 pm

Shalom Nick! I salute your two sides of the coin expertise. Most people like me could hardly grasp the intensity and gravity of your blog if I will simple look thru my eyes. When I started to involve my other senses, most especially my ❤ like the Little Prince who is now standing beside me waiting for the Asteroid from planet B612 for him to go back to his own planet where his life is simple and happy. Now my heart vision made me bleed for the countless struggles the human family faced. Most especially the invasion of Russia to Ukraine. I'm indeed in tears and sometimes wish I could simply ignore news about this tragic situation. I felt helpless because I can't step up for peace.

If I will be given a chance to speak with NATO leaders, UN leaders AND Prime Ministers of Western countries, most especially to Mr. Putin and Asian leaders as well, I will request all of them to take off their own shoes before they sit at a long table for peace. We poorest people in my country: to show respect to wealthy people we take off our shoes so that dirt of poverty will not stain their palace. I pray among those dignified leaders there is someone who will lead the taking off of shoes so that they can resolve issues not in their leadership point of view but in human perspective as casualties of war. That without dignity and pride would strip themselves of their egos to feel to be in the shoes of the victims of war. May they look brightly to Jesus as a leader who took off his disciples sandals and his own cloak to wipe their feet as a sign of his love and service.

In our country at this moment we suffer from oil price hike and non-stop price increases, starting from basic commodities to anything that is sold in the market. We keep praying in our daily church masses for Russia and Ukraine. That’s the only assistance we can give because most of us were already jobless because of pandemic, most of us are homeless because of typhoon Odette that hit us. Now another war catastrophe. Working days have been shortened into 3 or 4 days in a week to avoid spending too much on fares. Common people in PH gain only 405 pesos per day and spend 100 peso back and forth for fare (depends on the distance of a work place the fare rates), 50 pesos for food and work for 8 hours. Only a few pesos left in their basic salaries, then they are going to wait for next 15th or 20th or 25th pay day schedule. We cannot ask support to our government for they are busy with politics due to our upcoming Presidential election.

Many people who depend on left over foods from restaurants and fast food outlets like Jollibee for their daily meals are now committing crimes just to save their families from extreme hunger. For they cannot searched for food in the food bin because only few people have work and can afford 75 pesos chicken meals. If this war won't cease not only Ukrainians and Russians will suffer but poorest people will just die silently from their homes. I pray all of us will pray, pray passionately, that all leaders will choose people over instant gratification and the glorification of being tagged the most powerful.

I sincerely beg God in Jesus name that as soon as possible we will wake up peacefully with greatest love and initiative towards each other as a Human Family sheltering on one earth under the care of one Creator. We are nothing, Jesus is all. Allow me to take this chance to express my countless heartfelt prayerful thanks to all the charitable people in the UK, Germany, Australia to my UK Christian Bikers family, who are charitable people who endlessly giving love and support to poorest people in Philippines. Salute to all of you. These people are the real disciples or heroes of 21st century, who are unselfish and humble to take off their shoes to see us live. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

24/3/2022 09:12:05 pm

Hi Haven. Thank you for sharing such deep reflections from the heart...and based on painful lived experience in the midst of the real life, here-and-now consequences of the war in Ukraine. It is such a privilege to hear from you: and yours is a critical perspective for us to hear, especially to help avoid a risk of drifting off into discussing these issues at purely abstract levels. I love your Philippines' cultural practice of taking off one's shoes as a sign of humility, and as a symbol of leaving behind the metaphorical dirt that we so often pick up in life and carry into conversations and relationships with us. It means you show respect to the other person and, at the same time, lower the risk of contamination by egos, toxic beliefs and agendas laced with vested interests.

I loved how Rick James, a friend, a follower of Jesus and one of the co-presenters at the INTRAC event this week, introduced his speech in front of an international audience of experts. Rick's remarkable opening words were, in a spirit of genuine authenticity: 'There's so much about this that I don't understand.' What an astonishing contrast to, say, arrogantly attempting to parade his status or credentials. His spirit of openness is so humble, relational and invitational. I wonder what that could look like on the international political stage at the moment: imagine if one of the leaders were to approach his or her adversary with shoes off, hands outstretched, a warm smile and opening words: 'We are in such a mess. I'm sorry...and, as I look at how we got here, I wish I had handled my part in this better...'

When I look back on crises in our not-too-distant past, such as the US coalition invasions of Iraq that resulted, among other things, in the creation of the brutal-beyond-words Daesh movement which, in turn, inflicted so much suffering in the region and in other parts of the world, I wish our leaders had taken their shoes off before embarking on such disastrous ventures. This is one of the reasons why I believe critical reflection and critical reflexivity are so important. We need to consider the wider consequences of our actions, and have the humility to invite and hear critique. We also need to approach people, relationships, situations - and conflict - in a spirit of love. I sometimes really struggle with that personally and need constant inspiration and help from God.

Thank you for all you do, Haven, to shine Jesus so brightly, particularly in the lives of those who are so desperately poor and vulnerable around you - and often at considerable personal risk and cost. The Christian bikers salute you too! (Have fun with The Little Prince. I love that book and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's magical reminders of who and what matters most in life).

Tara Parker link

25/3/2022 05:47:40 pm

Nick,

I enjoy this kind of discussion because for those who are open to playing devil’s advocate it can yield incredibly rich conversations. Doesn’t mean those conversations are comfortable but they are necessary.

If you understand the scientific theory then you know a question with projected answer is presented which leads to a domino effect of steps where the outcome may not reflect the projected answer. A scientist is not offended when they did not align the actual results with the potential results; they learn. That learning is validated or expanded upon when the process is repeated yielding same results or new results or, even the originally projected results. Bottom line: scientists are not expecting to be right or wrong - they are prepared to learn.

Society is not made up of scientists. Society is what science studies and learns from and is continually baffled by despite best efforts. Science is not a binary area by nature while society is a binary force by choice. Society wants limited options and stability in those options. Anything else would be to rock the boat creating waves others may not know how to sail upon. Society wants a common calm body of water to sail because it’s mindless. It doesn’t take thought or learning. It just being and that’s what most want, is to just be.

What society fails to remember? No matter the amount of learning and application of that learning there is an instinct to reject uncomfortable ideas as a means of “keeping the peace” - so to speak.

Look forward to your next article.

Tara Parker

25/3/2022 10:58:49 pm

Thank you, Tara. I liked your analogy of scientists who are keen to learn, rather than to defend an original hypothesis. This is partly, perhaps, because scientists are rewarded for discovery. (I'm speaking in principle here because, of course, there are all kinds of reasons why, in real life, scientists may have a vested interest in 'proving' certain outcomes - e.g. depending on who is funding their research and why).

I was particularly struck by your reflection that 'society wants limited options and stability in those options.' You reminded me of similar reflections (if we were to think of organisations as microcosms of societies), by Ralph Stacey: that an organisation operating in rapidly changing environments needs to achieve, ‘consistency and stability in order to conduct its existing business in an efficient day-to-day manner; (whilst, at the same time) also needing to shatter that consistency and stability in order to generate creative new moves.'

Therein lies a deep paradox. If a person, a society, the world, wants to grow through learning and discovery - to create a very different and better world - it calls for profound curiosity, humility and courage: which is in direct conflict with 'an instinct to reject uncomfortable ideas as a means of keeping the peace.' This is, too, one of the challenges of critical reflexivity - how to address the anxiety first that would otherwise trigger a defended stance and response.

The New Testament offers a significant insight in this area, by emphasising the transformational power of 'faith, hope and love.' The antidote to anxiety is...love.

Szymon Nowak

9/4/2022 01:11:16 pm

Hi Nick. Red flag is same as false flag or different? Thank you.

9/4/2022 01:21:20 pm

Hi Szymon. Thank you for the good question. In English, 'red flag' is an expression that often signals a warning. To 'flag something up' is a related expression that means to raise a question or comment more generally. A 'false flag' is an expression that refers to an act of deception, often used to create a pretext for an action that would otherwise appear unjustified. In case of interest, here's a link to a short BBC article on 'false flags': https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60434579

Red flags

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Red flags

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives