Origin story ... the early times
PauBack in the early 1980's Jim Rough was an internal consultant with Simpson Timber Company in a California sawmill. Management was tied up in angry union meetings and asked Jim to help. He set up an Employee Involvement Program where the employees were facilitated to address and solve their most impossible-seeming problems. ... The process worked!! .. The groups made breakthrough progress. And the angry union meetings largely went away. ... In the short video below Jim, Paul Everett, his manager, Tom Bender, the maintenance supt. and Stan Figgins, the plant manager, share memories with one another 30 years after those times. All of them continue to be proud of the mill transformation that happened back then. In the process Jim started developing what is known today as "Dynamic Facilitation." And also the idea of the Wisdom Council Process first germinated.
Origin story of Society's Breakthrough ... a path of breakthroughs
In 1990 Jim started teaching public seminars on what later became known as “Dynamic Facilitation." It's a way to facilitate groups to address and solve impossible-seeming problems, where they reach a shared perspectives on what is the problem, what do we want, and what should we do. In the seminars, participants practiced the skills of Dynamic Facilitation in small groups working on high-care, impossible-seeming issues. For practice they would often address impossible high-care issues from society -- e.g. wars, homelessness, taxes, the education system, traffic, male-female relations, the health care system, environmental degradation, etc. Many breakthrough insights occurred. But, no matter what issue was chosen, these groups often experienced the same breakthrough(!) ... which was:
Breakthrough #1: Most of Society's big impossible-seeming problems are caused by “The System.”
(Frequent reactions: Are you saying that individual choices don’t matter? ... or that each of us can’t affect these problems?)
Most people assume that people become dis-empowered by this discovery. After all what can one person, or a few people, do to change "The System" at the national or global levels? But it turns out that this kind of breakthrough by itself, even when the problem gets bigger, is empowering. So when people face an impossible-seeming issue and people "get it" that "the real problem is even bigger" they usually feel a new energy of excitement, empowered to solve it.
Breakthrough #1 led to questions like, "What is 'The System'?" ... “How does it influence people?" … "How did it come into being?" ... "What's wrong with it?" …. "How can we fix it?" ... In one of the follow-up seminars, Jim experienced an insight that answered many of these questions:
Breakthrough #2: The "System" is the U.S. Constitution!
(Frequent reactions: The Constitution can't be "The System" because it only applies to the U.S. Not the world. The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Heck, to fix things, we need to get back to what the Founders intended. The Constitution is the solution. How can it be "the problem"?)
Over 200 years ago on the North American continent there was a symbolic gathering of "the people" to design how we will talk, think, and decide issues. Of course, this wasn’t ALL the people. Slaves, Native Americans, women, non property holders, etc., were excluded. Nevertheless, it was the most powerful, large-scale demonstration of collective thinking in history. The attendees proposed a market-oriented, merit-based, representative, rule of law, due process, balance of powers, voting-type System and provided a way for "the people" to consider and ratify it into existence. Even though this System was designed over two centuries ago, it continues to be our System today, determining the way we talk, think and make collective decisions. This System establishes a social contract, the "rules of the game"... in governance, economics, justice, etc. And this competition-based dynamic has spread throughout the world.
Today we are discovering that this System was designed for an environment that no longer exists, where there is a vast continent and few people to populate it. But today this is not the situation. Global society has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. So competition among people, political parties, corporations, branches of government, etc. can no longer be the organizing principle. In our new situation we are increasingly inter-dependent. And we must cooperate.
The Constitution was created through a collective thinking process, a "We the People" conversation, ultimately where most all enfranchised people reached a unified conclusion: "Let's try this newly designed Constitution". .... However this new System set up a different kind of conversation than the Founders enjoyed, where a unified conclusion is not possible. We are structured to think as "special interests" in competition, not to think holistically about what's best for all. We are stuck thinking individualistically and judgmentally. Each citizen, representative or consumer "votes" for what she or he thinks is best. And then the "votes" are added up to determine the decision. There is no seeking the "public interest". Just a competition among "special interests."
Back in 1993 the understanding was "our System can't work into the future." And the first idea to remedy that was to convene a U.S. Constitutional Convention. But mostly people were repulsed by this idea, fearful that it might mean losing what we've gained. Then came a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #3: "Let's convene a "U.S. Constitutional IN-vention"
(Frequent reactions: ... What's a "Constitutional IN-vention"? Is it just a gathering of people with no power to do anything? How are people chosen? )
In 1995 we put out a call for interested people to attend “An American Constitutional IN-vention" to be held in Port Townsend WA. It was a small gathering of 13 people discussing what might be wrong with our System and possible changes. Not much resulted. But there was one breakthrough. It was a question ...
Breakthrough #4: “What single safe Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would shift our System so that all these national problems would start becoming solvable?”
(Frequent reactions:There is no way people can collaborate at a national scale. And anyway, it’s impossible to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no matter how good it is.)
Jim began toying with an idea for what the Amendment might be. Basically, it was to have a random group of citizens gather each year, be dynamically facilitated to face the BIG issues, reach unity, and present this unity back to the nation in a State of the Union message from "the people" to "the people". For a long while this concept seemed like it wouldn't do much. Then on the night of May 9, 1993, ideas snapped into place and it became "obvious" ... This would work!!
Breakthrough #5: The "Citizens Amendment" would generate a legitimate "We the People" into being, and spark a new kind of democracy: "Wise Democracy".
(Frequent reactions: How could a series of small groups of random citizens spark a transformation of national governance? If it's this simple why hasn't anyone seen this before? To make this an Amendment seems top-down ... shouldn't it be bottom-up? Why does it need to be an Amendment anyway?)
The Citizens Amendment (now called the "Wise Democracy Amendment") does not change anything that currently exists. It just adds a conversation. A randomly selected group of citizens is gathered yearly to reach unity and present its unified message to "the people". And then the people talk among themselves and essentially "ratify" what this Wisdom Council has determined. It's essentially an an annual Constitutional Convention with with EVERYONE participating as delegates. ... Where's the risk? ... Random citizens are gathered. They share their message. And they go away. Then a new random group is selected and the cycle repeats. ... But magic happens because this process facilitates the rest of us to start facing the big problems, talking together across partisan boundaries, thinking creatively and coming together in unity. This coming together of all of us is a legitimate, powerful "We the People"
With the support of Rep. Norm Dicks Jim gave a presentation in the Capital Building, organized a conference on "Innovations in Democracy" (1995), wrote articles, started a TV show on democracy, gave talks and began supporting groups to organize local Wisdom Councils.
Breakthrough #1: Most of Society's big impossible-seeming problems are caused by “The System.”
(Frequent reactions: Are you saying that individual choices don’t matter? ... or that each of us can’t affect these problems?)
Most people assume that people become dis-empowered by this discovery. After all what can one person, or a few people, do to change "The System" at the national or global levels? But it turns out that this kind of breakthrough by itself, even when the problem gets bigger, is empowering. So when people face an impossible-seeming issue and people "get it" that "the real problem is even bigger" they usually feel a new energy of excitement, empowered to solve it.
Breakthrough #1 led to questions like, "What is 'The System'?" ... “How does it influence people?" … "How did it come into being?" ... "What's wrong with it?" …. "How can we fix it?" ... In one of the follow-up seminars, Jim experienced an insight that answered many of these questions:
Breakthrough #2: The "System" is the U.S. Constitution!
(Frequent reactions: The Constitution can't be "The System" because it only applies to the U.S. Not the world. The U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Heck, to fix things, we need to get back to what the Founders intended. The Constitution is the solution. How can it be "the problem"?)
Over 200 years ago on the North American continent there was a symbolic gathering of "the people" to design how we will talk, think, and decide issues. Of course, this wasn’t ALL the people. Slaves, Native Americans, women, non property holders, etc., were excluded. Nevertheless, it was the most powerful, large-scale demonstration of collective thinking in history. The attendees proposed a market-oriented, merit-based, representative, rule of law, due process, balance of powers, voting-type System and provided a way for "the people" to consider and ratify it into existence. Even though this System was designed over two centuries ago, it continues to be our System today, determining the way we talk, think and make collective decisions. This System establishes a social contract, the "rules of the game"... in governance, economics, justice, etc. And this competition-based dynamic has spread throughout the world.
Today we are discovering that this System was designed for an environment that no longer exists, where there is a vast continent and few people to populate it. But today this is not the situation. Global society has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. So competition among people, political parties, corporations, branches of government, etc. can no longer be the organizing principle. In our new situation we are increasingly inter-dependent. And we must cooperate.
The Constitution was created through a collective thinking process, a "We the People" conversation, ultimately where most all enfranchised people reached a unified conclusion: "Let's try this newly designed Constitution". .... However this new System set up a different kind of conversation than the Founders enjoyed, where a unified conclusion is not possible. We are structured to think as "special interests" in competition, not to think holistically about what's best for all. We are stuck thinking individualistically and judgmentally. Each citizen, representative or consumer "votes" for what she or he thinks is best. And then the "votes" are added up to determine the decision. There is no seeking the "public interest". Just a competition among "special interests."
Back in 1993 the understanding was "our System can't work into the future." And the first idea to remedy that was to convene a U.S. Constitutional Convention. But mostly people were repulsed by this idea, fearful that it might mean losing what we've gained. Then came a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #3: "Let's convene a "U.S. Constitutional IN-vention"
(Frequent reactions: ... What's a "Constitutional IN-vention"? Is it just a gathering of people with no power to do anything? How are people chosen? )
In 1995 we put out a call for interested people to attend “An American Constitutional IN-vention" to be held in Port Townsend WA. It was a small gathering of 13 people discussing what might be wrong with our System and possible changes. Not much resulted. But there was one breakthrough. It was a question ...
Breakthrough #4: “What single safe Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would shift our System so that all these national problems would start becoming solvable?”
(Frequent reactions:There is no way people can collaborate at a national scale. And anyway, it’s impossible to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no matter how good it is.)
Jim began toying with an idea for what the Amendment might be. Basically, it was to have a random group of citizens gather each year, be dynamically facilitated to face the BIG issues, reach unity, and present this unity back to the nation in a State of the Union message from "the people" to "the people". For a long while this concept seemed like it wouldn't do much. Then on the night of May 9, 1993, ideas snapped into place and it became "obvious" ... This would work!!
Breakthrough #5: The "Citizens Amendment" would generate a legitimate "We the People" into being, and spark a new kind of democracy: "Wise Democracy".
(Frequent reactions: How could a series of small groups of random citizens spark a transformation of national governance? If it's this simple why hasn't anyone seen this before? To make this an Amendment seems top-down ... shouldn't it be bottom-up? Why does it need to be an Amendment anyway?)
The Citizens Amendment (now called the "Wise Democracy Amendment") does not change anything that currently exists. It just adds a conversation. A randomly selected group of citizens is gathered yearly to reach unity and present its unified message to "the people". And then the people talk among themselves and essentially "ratify" what this Wisdom Council has determined. It's essentially an an annual Constitutional Convention with with EVERYONE participating as delegates. ... Where's the risk? ... Random citizens are gathered. They share their message. And they go away. Then a new random group is selected and the cycle repeats. ... But magic happens because this process facilitates the rest of us to start facing the big problems, talking together across partisan boundaries, thinking creatively and coming together in unity. This coming together of all of us is a legitimate, powerful "We the People"
With the support of Rep. Norm Dicks Jim gave a presentation in the Capital Building, organized a conference on "Innovations in Democracy" (1995), wrote articles, started a TV show on democracy, gave talks and began supporting groups to organize local Wisdom Councils.
In 2002, Jim and Jean Rough, plus DeAnna Martin, co-founded the Center for Wise Democracy to encourage experiments with the Wisdom Council Process. Also that year, Jim published his book Society's Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People, describing the Amendment and how it would work.
|
|
Then in November 2003 after a public radio interview with Jeff Golden (see Immense Possibilities) three listeners from the Rogue Valley of Oregon (David Wick, Karen Gossetti and Lance Bisaccia) independently called to express interest in a Wisdom Council for their area, Rogue Valley, OR. With the help of democracy pioneers Tom Atlee (Author of The Tao of Democracy and Empowering Public Wisdom), Adin Rogovin (Board member of the Co-Intelligence Institute), and Elliot Shuford (Board member of Healthy Democracy Oregon), we set up a public Wisdom Council experiment in the Rogue Valley so people could experience how it might work.. ... Also Joseph McCormick, a right-wing politician from Georgia who later founded Reuniting America, heard about this experiment and came out West to film it. (See Democracy in America) The experiment worked more powerfully than we could have imagined. This led to another breakthrough:
Breakthrough #6: Even without an Amendment, the Wisdom Council process can generate a legitimate "We the People".
(Frequent reactions: How can just a few people, unchartered by the U.S. Constitution, spark a legitimate "We the People" into being? How could just a few people spark a transformation of the national (or global) System in a way that causes many of the biggest impossible-seeming problems to go away? How does this random group gain such power?)
Many things went wrong in our Rogue Valley Wisdom Council ... e.g. only seven random people showed up to be on the Wisdom Council instead of the 14 who said they'd be there; No elected officials came; The media didn’t cover the event well; etc. ... Our intent for the experiment was educational—to show people how this process could work if it was enacted nationally through a Constitutional Amendment. But ... surprise! ... the process worked by itself. It created a sense of "We the People" even with just 120 or so people attending the Wisdom Council presentation. From this one-time experiment ... and future experiments as well ... it was clear that the audience picks up on the "We the People" spirit of the Wisdom Council. They basically said, "Yes I think so too" to what the Wisdom Council is saying. More importantly for this phase of our project they essentially said, "Why can't this happen as a regular part of our democracy?" ... Surprise ... Why was it working without an Amendment?
Breakthrough #7: The “magic sauce” which allows Wisdom Councils to generate a legitimate spirit of "We the People" in the larger audience is the quality of thinking that we call "choice-creating."
(Frequent reactions: Why haven't I heard of choice-creating? Why is choice-creating so important? How does Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council Process facilitate people into the spirit of choice-creating?)
At first glance the Wisdom Council process looks like just another form of citizens deliberative council, like the Citizens Jury, Citizens Panel, Citizens Assembly or Deliberative Poll. All of these involve selecting random citizens who tackle a problem and present their results to a large audience.
But, the Wisdom Council Process is fundamentally different. These other processes are “deliberative” in nature, where people work on a well defined issue, are given carefully prepared information, weigh specific options, vote to select the best and present their conclusions to "decision-makers," hopefully affecting policy.
On the other hand, each Wisdom Council addresses an ill-defined impossible-seeming issue like "climate change". And it works collaboratively to co-create the best answer, not weighing pre-selected options. Often they redefine the problem entirely and reach a conclusion that doesn't involve policy. Unlike Citizens Deliberative Councils there is no voting. Through creative thinking they reach unity and present their results to the PEOPLE rather than to the "decision-makers". They also tell a story of how they got to unity through shifts and breakthroughs. Plus, the Wisdom Council is an ongoing Process, not a one-off event.
Discovering the importance of choice-creating led to the next breakthrough:
Breakthrough #8: Dynamic Facilitation is essential, because it reliably evokes choice-creating.
(Frequent reactions: Who cares what facilitation method is used if the group reaches unity? Can you always guarantee group unity? How many people are skilled in Dynamic Facilitation?)
Originally, it didn’t seem to matter what facilitation process was used. But through experience it has become clear that choice-creating is the magic sauce to reliably generate group unity and establish a legitimate "We the People". (See chart comparing decision-making and choice-creating) And since Dynamic Facilitation reliably evokes choice creating, it is crucial as well. (See the chart comparing traditional facilitation vs. Dynamic Facilitation.)
In 2006, a citizen group in Victoria, BC, Canada, spearheaded by George Sranko and Caspar Davis, established a series of three Wisdom Councils. Each one worked wonderfully well for those that attended. But it didn't gain traction in the population. Plus, the second and third Wisdom Councils essentially repeated the experience of the first. That is, the three Wisdom Councils didn't build the desired public conversation.
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if the process had been set in motion by "the people" through a Constitutional Amendment. Then the citizenry would have paid rapt attention, would have known what had happened in earlier Wisdom Councils and would join in fulfilling the conclusions. But in this case the process was started by a well-meaning citizen group. So the question became ... "How does the whole population attend to and participate in the Wisdom Council Process when it's started by just a small group of concerned citizens?"
(Frequent reactions: How can just a few people, unchartered by the U.S. Constitution, spark a legitimate "We the People" into being? How could just a few people spark a transformation of the national (or global) System in a way that causes many of the biggest impossible-seeming problems to go away? How does this random group gain such power?)
Many things went wrong in our Rogue Valley Wisdom Council ... e.g. only seven random people showed up to be on the Wisdom Council instead of the 14 who said they'd be there; No elected officials came; The media didn’t cover the event well; etc. ... Our intent for the experiment was educational—to show people how this process could work if it was enacted nationally through a Constitutional Amendment. But ... surprise! ... the process worked by itself. It created a sense of "We the People" even with just 120 or so people attending the Wisdom Council presentation. From this one-time experiment ... and future experiments as well ... it was clear that the audience picks up on the "We the People" spirit of the Wisdom Council. They basically said, "Yes I think so too" to what the Wisdom Council is saying. More importantly for this phase of our project they essentially said, "Why can't this happen as a regular part of our democracy?" ... Surprise ... Why was it working without an Amendment?
Breakthrough #7: The “magic sauce” which allows Wisdom Councils to generate a legitimate spirit of "We the People" in the larger audience is the quality of thinking that we call "choice-creating."
(Frequent reactions: Why haven't I heard of choice-creating? Why is choice-creating so important? How does Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council Process facilitate people into the spirit of choice-creating?)
At first glance the Wisdom Council process looks like just another form of citizens deliberative council, like the Citizens Jury, Citizens Panel, Citizens Assembly or Deliberative Poll. All of these involve selecting random citizens who tackle a problem and present their results to a large audience.
But, the Wisdom Council Process is fundamentally different. These other processes are “deliberative” in nature, where people work on a well defined issue, are given carefully prepared information, weigh specific options, vote to select the best and present their conclusions to "decision-makers," hopefully affecting policy.
On the other hand, each Wisdom Council addresses an ill-defined impossible-seeming issue like "climate change". And it works collaboratively to co-create the best answer, not weighing pre-selected options. Often they redefine the problem entirely and reach a conclusion that doesn't involve policy. Unlike Citizens Deliberative Councils there is no voting. Through creative thinking they reach unity and present their results to the PEOPLE rather than to the "decision-makers". They also tell a story of how they got to unity through shifts and breakthroughs. Plus, the Wisdom Council is an ongoing Process, not a one-off event.
Discovering the importance of choice-creating led to the next breakthrough:
Breakthrough #8: Dynamic Facilitation is essential, because it reliably evokes choice-creating.
(Frequent reactions: Who cares what facilitation method is used if the group reaches unity? Can you always guarantee group unity? How many people are skilled in Dynamic Facilitation?)
Originally, it didn’t seem to matter what facilitation process was used. But through experience it has become clear that choice-creating is the magic sauce to reliably generate group unity and establish a legitimate "We the People". (See chart comparing decision-making and choice-creating) And since Dynamic Facilitation reliably evokes choice creating, it is crucial as well. (See the chart comparing traditional facilitation vs. Dynamic Facilitation.)
In 2006, a citizen group in Victoria, BC, Canada, spearheaded by George Sranko and Caspar Davis, established a series of three Wisdom Councils. Each one worked wonderfully well for those that attended. But it didn't gain traction in the population. Plus, the second and third Wisdom Councils essentially repeated the experience of the first. That is, the three Wisdom Councils didn't build the desired public conversation.
Of course, this wouldn't have been a problem if the process had been set in motion by "the people" through a Constitutional Amendment. Then the citizenry would have paid rapt attention, would have known what had happened in earlier Wisdom Councils and would join in fulfilling the conclusions. But in this case the process was started by a well-meaning citizen group. So the question became ... "How does the whole population attend to and participate in the Wisdom Council Process when it's started by just a small group of concerned citizens?"
Breakthrough #9: The Wisdom Council process works better when the issue is determined beforehand.
(Frequent reactions! If the Wisdom Council is a symbol of ‘We the People,' what higher authority exists to tell "the people" what to talk about? If Dynamic Facilitation depends on people's heart-felt energy, how can we expect randomly selected people to care about pre-selected issues?)
When Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the director of the Office of Future Related Issues (OFRI) started experimenting with the Wisdom Council Process, they allowed government leaders to select the issue beforehand rather than to have the Wisdom Council select its own issue. This step better served government leaders. And because of Dynamic Facilitation, the process worked anyway. Also they used the process in conjunction with dialogue, the World Café, Open Space Technology, and Art of Hosting. ... At the time we were concerned that this strategy would limit the transformational potential of the process so we gave it a different name, the Creative Insight Council (CIC). But in time our fears disappeared because the Wisdom Council determined the ultimate topic anyway. And because this approach drew more interest from the general public.\
A new question arose ... "How can we export process of choice-creating to the whole population so that everyone talks and relates in this more creative, collaborative way?
(Frequent reactions! If the Wisdom Council is a symbol of ‘We the People,' what higher authority exists to tell "the people" what to talk about? If Dynamic Facilitation depends on people's heart-felt energy, how can we expect randomly selected people to care about pre-selected issues?)
When Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the director of the Office of Future Related Issues (OFRI) started experimenting with the Wisdom Council Process, they allowed government leaders to select the issue beforehand rather than to have the Wisdom Council select its own issue. This step better served government leaders. And because of Dynamic Facilitation, the process worked anyway. Also they used the process in conjunction with dialogue, the World Café, Open Space Technology, and Art of Hosting. ... At the time we were concerned that this strategy would limit the transformational potential of the process so we gave it a different name, the Creative Insight Council (CIC). But in time our fears disappeared because the Wisdom Council determined the ultimate topic anyway. And because this approach drew more interest from the general public.\
A new question arose ... "How can we export process of choice-creating to the whole population so that everyone talks and relates in this more creative, collaborative way?
Breakthrough #10: In addition to presenting its results, a Wisdom Council also tells the story of how it achieved unity on the results.
(Frequent reactions: Why is the story important?; How can a Wisdom Council have only one story to tell?)
Originally in the Wisdom Council presentation and community gathering, the Wisdom Council shared only two elements: 1) Personal introductions of each participant; and 2) The ultimate conclusions. But the conclusions by themselves can set up an agree/disagree dynamic in the larger audience, which we don't want. Instead, we want people in the public to identify with the journey of the Wisdom Council, to resonate with their progress and to continue talking in a way that approximates choice-creating. Key for this to happen is adding a third element to the Wisdom Council presentation: 3) The story of how the group progressed—where we started, problems we ran into, where we got stuck, and where we experienced shifts of thinking. This story is essentially the hero's journey, where the hero/heroine faces and overcomes a series of crises. And the audience identifies with this heroic figure, resonating with the ups and downs enough to continue talking in a similar way.
This version of the hero's journey is the story of "We the People," all of us, coming together to surmount the "monster problems" And of course, as Wisdom Councils are ongoing, this new whole-system conversation continues. Here is the conversation we've all been desiring, where we are invited to help face and address the big issues that have largely gone ignored. This is where is where We help determine and implement the choices of our society. For example, consider the story that Martina Handler tells of the Wisdom Council in Mauthausen.
Arising from experiments with the Wisdom Council Process in Austria came a surprising realization:
(Frequent reactions: Why is the story important?; How can a Wisdom Council have only one story to tell?)
Originally in the Wisdom Council presentation and community gathering, the Wisdom Council shared only two elements: 1) Personal introductions of each participant; and 2) The ultimate conclusions. But the conclusions by themselves can set up an agree/disagree dynamic in the larger audience, which we don't want. Instead, we want people in the public to identify with the journey of the Wisdom Council, to resonate with their progress and to continue talking in a way that approximates choice-creating. Key for this to happen is adding a third element to the Wisdom Council presentation: 3) The story of how the group progressed—where we started, problems we ran into, where we got stuck, and where we experienced shifts of thinking. This story is essentially the hero's journey, where the hero/heroine faces and overcomes a series of crises. And the audience identifies with this heroic figure, resonating with the ups and downs enough to continue talking in a similar way.
This version of the hero's journey is the story of "We the People," all of us, coming together to surmount the "monster problems" And of course, as Wisdom Councils are ongoing, this new whole-system conversation continues. Here is the conversation we've all been desiring, where we are invited to help face and address the big issues that have largely gone ignored. This is where is where We help determine and implement the choices of our society. For example, consider the story that Martina Handler tells of the Wisdom Council in Mauthausen.
Arising from experiments with the Wisdom Council Process in Austria came a surprising realization:
Breakthrough #11: Surprise: Elected representatives appreciate the Wisdom Council Process!
(Frequent reactions: Elected representatives must serve their donors; They don't really care about what the people think)
All along in the development of the Wisdom Council Process, critics have assured us that those in power would resist. But in the Austrian State of Vorarlberg, elected legislators witnessed Wisdom Councils in their towns and communities. They saw it as a way to involve and educate mainstream citizens and to spark trans-partisan action. They said, “We want this process at the state level as well.” Now in the state of Vorarlberg every six months there is a government sponsored Wisdom Council. Elected leaders set aside one afternoon to sit at tables together in the foyer of their building and listen to a Wisdom Council present its perspective. Then they engage one another about the results, visiting in a more creative, collaborative conversation than before.
Each Wisdom Council helps the people gain clarity about what they think is going on and what they want. Compared to the usual survey process, this is superior in every way. The Wisdom Council articulates in clear terms what the people are thinking and feeling. During the Syrian refugee crisis when the people seemed fearful about the refugees, a Wisdom Council met and expressed sympathy and overall strategy going forward. One legislator said after the Wisdom Council spoke, “No elected official could have said that.” And another said, “The Wisdom Council is like wind at my back.”
The approach worked so well that all four political parties voted to include it in the state constitution. Other states of Austria are experimenting as well.
Also, from these early Wisdom Councils was a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #12: Ordinary citizens can use the Wisdom Council Process to address their issues.
(Frequent reactions: How can one citizen set the agenda for the national conversation? Won't ordinary people take undue advantage of this power?)
Every six months in Voralberg either the governor or a political party will specify the issue for a Wisdom Council to address. However thanks to Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the legislature also added another possibility to the constitutional amendment. It's a way that ordinary citizens can convene a state-sponsored Wisdom Council on their issue. They just need to gain 1000 signatures (5000 are required to propose a state initiative). Just one citizen can call for a state-wide Wisdom Council on a particular issue of concern to him or her, where the whole system talks through the issue together.
As we gained experience with the Wisdom Council Process we discovered more about its power for system transformation ...
Breakthrough #13: We (just a few of us with adequate resources) can set up a global Wisdom Council Process and spark the global System to transform itself(!)
(Frequent reactions: That's a silly claim! ... Wouldn’t it be better to convene lots of Wisdom Councils at the local level and build experience until the UN or someone else adopts this approach? ... How can one gather a truly random selection of people from the world? ... What about repressive governments that are likely to keep people from participating? ... How to handle language and cultural differences? ... Who would listen to the voice of a small group of random citizens? ... How can this random group exert any real power? ... How could one group affect the global socio-political-economic system? ... Isn’t it idealistic to think that the people of the world would pay attention? ... or come together? ... or reach near-unity? How could a small set of ordinary people convene something that could make this level of difference? etc.)
There are lots of questions and concerns about how a global Wisdom Council Process could get started, whether it would work and the level of difference it would make. None of the concerns is that something bad would happen. With money and media support each of these concerns can be overcome. Plus, even before the difficulties are surmounted, there are big benefits from just trying. Just pulling together a small random group of people and taking their picture, for instance, could be a benefit.. ... Also note: This is a not just a nice-to-have, hope-it-works type idea. ... Eventually, we all MUST start working together at the global level. And we MUST elevate our level of collective intelligence. ... Notice when you talk seriously with someone about society's problems, you are likely to hear a sentence starting with these three words: "We need to ... " That's how people deal with their anxiety, to present a solution as though it's something "we" should do. But until the global Wisdom Council Process is implemented there is no "We" to think through possible actions, come to some collective choice or coordinate whole-system cooperation.
The secret to solving the big impossible-seeming global issues is to convene the missing, powerful "We the People" conversation and to transform the existing competitive System into something more collaborative. Then "We" can start facing the Big problems together and providing responsible direction to national governments and institutions. Intelligent collective action becomes possible through an "ongoing whole-planet choice-creating conversation".
(Frequent reactions: Elected representatives must serve their donors; They don't really care about what the people think)
All along in the development of the Wisdom Council Process, critics have assured us that those in power would resist. But in the Austrian State of Vorarlberg, elected legislators witnessed Wisdom Councils in their towns and communities. They saw it as a way to involve and educate mainstream citizens and to spark trans-partisan action. They said, “We want this process at the state level as well.” Now in the state of Vorarlberg every six months there is a government sponsored Wisdom Council. Elected leaders set aside one afternoon to sit at tables together in the foyer of their building and listen to a Wisdom Council present its perspective. Then they engage one another about the results, visiting in a more creative, collaborative conversation than before.
Each Wisdom Council helps the people gain clarity about what they think is going on and what they want. Compared to the usual survey process, this is superior in every way. The Wisdom Council articulates in clear terms what the people are thinking and feeling. During the Syrian refugee crisis when the people seemed fearful about the refugees, a Wisdom Council met and expressed sympathy and overall strategy going forward. One legislator said after the Wisdom Council spoke, “No elected official could have said that.” And another said, “The Wisdom Council is like wind at my back.”
The approach worked so well that all four political parties voted to include it in the state constitution. Other states of Austria are experimenting as well.
Also, from these early Wisdom Councils was a breakthrough ...
Breakthrough #12: Ordinary citizens can use the Wisdom Council Process to address their issues.
(Frequent reactions: How can one citizen set the agenda for the national conversation? Won't ordinary people take undue advantage of this power?)
Every six months in Voralberg either the governor or a political party will specify the issue for a Wisdom Council to address. However thanks to Dr. Manfred Hellrigl, the legislature also added another possibility to the constitutional amendment. It's a way that ordinary citizens can convene a state-sponsored Wisdom Council on their issue. They just need to gain 1000 signatures (5000 are required to propose a state initiative). Just one citizen can call for a state-wide Wisdom Council on a particular issue of concern to him or her, where the whole system talks through the issue together.
As we gained experience with the Wisdom Council Process we discovered more about its power for system transformation ...
Breakthrough #13: We (just a few of us with adequate resources) can set up a global Wisdom Council Process and spark the global System to transform itself(!)
(Frequent reactions: That's a silly claim! ... Wouldn’t it be better to convene lots of Wisdom Councils at the local level and build experience until the UN or someone else adopts this approach? ... How can one gather a truly random selection of people from the world? ... What about repressive governments that are likely to keep people from participating? ... How to handle language and cultural differences? ... Who would listen to the voice of a small group of random citizens? ... How can this random group exert any real power? ... How could one group affect the global socio-political-economic system? ... Isn’t it idealistic to think that the people of the world would pay attention? ... or come together? ... or reach near-unity? How could a small set of ordinary people convene something that could make this level of difference? etc.)
There are lots of questions and concerns about how a global Wisdom Council Process could get started, whether it would work and the level of difference it would make. None of the concerns is that something bad would happen. With money and media support each of these concerns can be overcome. Plus, even before the difficulties are surmounted, there are big benefits from just trying. Just pulling together a small random group of people and taking their picture, for instance, could be a benefit.. ... Also note: This is a not just a nice-to-have, hope-it-works type idea. ... Eventually, we all MUST start working together at the global level. And we MUST elevate our level of collective intelligence. ... Notice when you talk seriously with someone about society's problems, you are likely to hear a sentence starting with these three words: "We need to ... " That's how people deal with their anxiety, to present a solution as though it's something "we" should do. But until the global Wisdom Council Process is implemented there is no "We" to think through possible actions, come to some collective choice or coordinate whole-system cooperation.
The secret to solving the big impossible-seeming global issues is to convene the missing, powerful "We the People" conversation and to transform the existing competitive System into something more collaborative. Then "We" can start facing the Big problems together and providing responsible direction to national governments and institutions. Intelligent collective action becomes possible through an "ongoing whole-planet choice-creating conversation".
Breakthrough #14: Implementing a global Wisdom Council Process would transform economics as well as governance. (We call the new economic system: "ToBe-ism").
(Frequent reactions: Those in power, the capitalists, will never allow a new economic system. ... Isn't this just socialism? ... How can a new global conversation spark a new economics? ... How could such a conversation overturn the current entrenched system of capitalism and the orientation to consumption and profits?)
Our current System is based in competition. But competition requires that competitors be in-dependent. If so then win/lose battling can turn win/win for everyone. But if the competitors are inter-dependent then the System will collapse. It's like the heart and lungs competing for blood. Things turn from win/lose or win/win to lose/lose. ... By continuing to base our System of government and economics on competition when we are increasingly interdependent we will destroy our planet and our people.
What's needed isn't so hard to achieve. We just need to add the missing "We the People" conversation to what already exists. We all need to stop periodically, step out of the competitive mode and talk respectfully about what's going on, what we all want and how to achieve it. Just adding this new thinking process would transform governance, economics and the culture. The market is still there, but now there is also a shared understanding of what we all want and a way to coordinate to get there.
This new system of thoughtful economics does not have a name. But it is new. It needs a new name that, like other economic systems (e.g. capitalism, socialism, feudalism, communism, etc.) has to end in "-ism". We suggest "ToBe-ism." I
(Frequent reactions: Those in power, the capitalists, will never allow a new economic system. ... Isn't this just socialism? ... How can a new global conversation spark a new economics? ... How could such a conversation overturn the current entrenched system of capitalism and the orientation to consumption and profits?)
Our current System is based in competition. But competition requires that competitors be in-dependent. If so then win/lose battling can turn win/win for everyone. But if the competitors are inter-dependent then the System will collapse. It's like the heart and lungs competing for blood. Things turn from win/lose or win/win to lose/lose. ... By continuing to base our System of government and economics on competition when we are increasingly interdependent we will destroy our planet and our people.
What's needed isn't so hard to achieve. We just need to add the missing "We the People" conversation to what already exists. We all need to stop periodically, step out of the competitive mode and talk respectfully about what's going on, what we all want and how to achieve it. Just adding this new thinking process would transform governance, economics and the culture. The market is still there, but now there is also a shared understanding of what we all want and a way to coordinate to get there.
This new system of thoughtful economics does not have a name. But it is new. It needs a new name that, like other economic systems (e.g. capitalism, socialism, feudalism, communism, etc.) has to end in "-ism". We suggest "ToBe-ism." I
Breakthrough #15:The global Wisdom Council Process is the missing ingredient allowing the sought-for transformation of Metaphysics, the underlying orientation to our thinking, away from the "Metaphysics of Subject-Object" to the "Metaphysics of Quality"
(Frequent reactions: Transforming the underlying mode of thinking in a culture takes hundreds of years, like with the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment. ... How can we expect to choice-creating to transform our thinking fast enough to benefit everyone? ... If you can't explain choice-creating adequately how can you expect people to understand it's implications?)
The terminology "Metaphysics of Subject-Object" vs. the "Metaphysics of Quality" comes from the popular philosophical novel Lila by Robert M Pirsig. Today, there are many representations of this desired transformation. Ervin Laszlo, the Danny Sheehan reports that the . Unlike the scientific revolution the next transformation of human thinking can happen fast. We (a few of us) can use the Wisdom Council Process plus modern communication methods to facilitate one ongoing global choice-creating conversation. Ultimately in this conversation people feel a sense of one-ness, of whole-ness and belonging. Some refer to it as "We-consciousness," recognizing we are part of the Earth, for instance, rather masters of the Earth, or treating the Earth and others like resources for our purposes.
(Frequent reactions: Transforming the underlying mode of thinking in a culture takes hundreds of years, like with the scientific revolution or the Enlightenment. ... How can we expect to choice-creating to transform our thinking fast enough to benefit everyone? ... If you can't explain choice-creating adequately how can you expect people to understand it's implications?)
The terminology "Metaphysics of Subject-Object" vs. the "Metaphysics of Quality" comes from the popular philosophical novel Lila by Robert M Pirsig. Today, there are many representations of this desired transformation. Ervin Laszlo, the Danny Sheehan reports that the . Unlike the scientific revolution the next transformation of human thinking can happen fast. We (a few of us) can use the Wisdom Council Process plus modern communication methods to facilitate one ongoing global choice-creating conversation. Ultimately in this conversation people feel a sense of one-ness, of whole-ness and belonging. Some refer to it as "We-consciousness," recognizing we are part of the Earth, for instance, rather masters of the Earth, or treating the Earth and others like resources for our purposes.
Please support the Center for Wise Democracy in whatever ways you can ... All donations are tax-deductible. We are a 501-c3 organization.