Developing development
Did you hear about the car aerial that married a satellite dish; the wedding was a bit boring but apparently the reception was brilliant. Sadly, I can’t apply this adjective to the response I received for my set of posts over the New Year about entitlement. Yet, unabashed by the evidence that the longer I talk about an issue the less convincing I become, I am this week planning to write a series of posts on aspects of human development…..
Last Thursday I chaired an event at which Richard Sennett spoke about his new book Together. As tends to be the case with Richard’s work the book is often fascinating, sometimes inspiring and occasionally baffling. His core thesis certainly struck a chord.
Sennett joins many other thinkers in identifying both the importance of collaboration to human prospects in the 21st century but also the challenges of living and working with people – often very different to ourselves in values, backgrounds and lifestyles – in a fast moving, shrinking world. He suggests three attributes which people need to be able successfully and enduringly to function together (and alongside these, three apparently similar attributes they must supplant).
First, we must seek dialogic rather than dialectic communication (in essence this means conversation which accepts and negotiates different perspectives rather than seeking to find a single shared view). Second, we should aim for a subjunctive rather than a declaratory form of expression. Sennett writes:
‘The subjunctive mood counters Bernard Williams’ fear of the fetish of assertiveness by opening up instead an indeterminate mutual space, the space in which strangers dwell with one another…’.
Third, the sentiment that suits modern togetherness is empathy rather than sympathy:
‘Both sympathy and empathy convey recognition, and both forge a bond, but one is an embrace the other an encounter…Sympathy has usually been thought a stronger sentiment…I feel your pain puts a stress on what I feel; it activates one; own ego. Empathy is a more demanding exercise, at least in listening; the listener has to get outside him- or herself’.
Rather like the objects in an impressionist painting the edges of Sennett’s concepts tend to blur into each other, but what struck me was the congruence with the idea of self-authorship developed by developmental psychologist Robert Kegan. Using a similar framework to Jean Piaget’s pioneering work on child cognitive development, Kegan’s masterwork is The Evolving Self, in which he describes the stages of psychological development, each subsuming the one before, which take place not just in childhood but throughout life.
Kegan argues not just that we should aspire to greater self-awareness but that we need to reach a higher, more empathic, level of functioning to meet the practical requirements of twenty-first century citizenship. In particular, successfully functioning in a society with diverse values, traditions and lifestyles “requires us to have a relationship to our own reactions, rather than be captive of them”. Kegan writes of an ability to “resist our tendencies to make ‘right’ or ‘true’ that which is merely familiar and ‘wrong’ or ‘false’ that which is only strange”. In a 2002 overview of survey evidence for the OECD, Kegan concluded than only one in five people across the world have achieved the competencies necessary for what he termed a ‘modernist’ or self-authoring order of consciousness.
The view that there is both the need and the scope for human beings to develop to a ‘higher’ level of functioning has many adherents. Another version lies in my articulation of the RSA strap-line ‘twenty first century enlightenment’. But many questions arise?
How distinct is such a view from well-meaning but vacuous view that it would be a better world if we were all better people?
Among the different accounts of human beings need to develop to thrive in the modern world, what are the important similarities and differences?
How credible is the view that human development can enhanced. Perhaps it happens anyway (cf the Flynn effect or Steven Pinker’s recent evidence of declining violence) or perhaps, as John Grey would no doubt argue, we flatter ourselves with the idea we can somehow transcend the flawed character of our species.
Broadly, what routes to enhanced human development hold out the greatest promise: education, culture, institutional innovation, spiritual awakening?
Specifically, what examples are there of sustained improvements in human psychological and behavioural development and can these examples be scaled?
As a strong advocate of a necessary human development thesis, my aim here is to sharpen the case rather than find holes in it. I was excited last week to be contacted by Robert Kegan himself who has said some very generous things about the RSA’s 21st century enlightenment thesis. But I am also impatient of making the same broad case time and again but not yet feeling it carries sufficient conviction let alone a concrete set of policies and practices. Of the questions above my sense is that the last is both the most important and the hardest.
An enlightened Fellowship
I was even later leaving work than usual on Friday as we were entertaining a group of academics and leaders from the world of culture and heritage. The Re-enlightenment project had just spent two very fruitful days debating and planning at the British Museum. As they sipped fine wine and munched the RSA’s excellent canapés, the group was kind enough not only to listen to me talking about 21st century enlightenment but to greet the ideas warmly.
A particular area of interest was how institutions must change to respond to new challenges and opportunities. I talked about organisational alignment and how the RSA has tried to make new thinking and practice around human capability central to both our events programme and our research projects. But the most difficult and rewarding change has been in the culture of Fellowship.
After all, how could we talk about tapping into the ‘hidden wealth’ of society if we weren’t even making the most of the incredible wealth of talent and commitment in Fellowship?
The journey of Fellowship engagement has not been easy and is far from complete. But there are times on a long uphill climb when it is important to sit down and look back at how far we’ve come. The recent Fellowship survey which showed high level of satisfaction with the Society and its direction was a good sign, but approval isn’t the same as engagement. Here are three things which really make me feel we’ve reached higher ground:
The recently published summer RSA Journal features a new and exciting way of presenting Fellows’ projects. Instead of simply having a couple of pages for Fellow activities, as used to be the case, the Journal has included relevant examples of Fellow networks in the body of larger articles. In pieces on social enterprise, cities and corporate responsibility there are panels describing the ways Fellows are working with other Fellows on these topics. This bringing together of the role of the RSA as a platform for ideas and a network of civic entrepreneurs is a brilliant illustration of why the RSA is so special and full of potential.
Today we had a cross cutting meeting here at John Adam Street exploring all the different strands of work we do around what is sometimes called ‘place shaping’, basically the process by which local leaders and active citizens develop and act on shared aspirations for their locality. Many of our projects – ranging from network analysis to social enterprise to public service modernisation – relate to place shaping. The meeting was designed to start bringing these different elements together into a single offer. For this post the relevant moment was when it became clear that it is the activities and prompting of local FRSAs which are increasingly the spur for local agencies to contact John Adam Street. Indeed, I am speaking at place shaping events organised by Fellows in Stoke and in Leicester in the coming few weeks. So, this is a good example of synergy (sorry I hate that word but it’s gone eight and I’m desperate to leave work while it’s still light) between RSA Projects and RSA Fellowship
Finally, I also heard last week that the Boden Group, FRSAs Phil Shepherd, Tim Martin and Nick Brace, all based in Somerset will receive £20,000 from Arts Council England to extend their research and develop a practical pilot programme exploring links between arts, community development and education. The Boden Group was an early winner of a Catalyst award (of just £1,000) and this is now the third case in recent times of a Fellows’ projects which has got a small amount of pump priming investment and support and then gone on to raise much more substantial funding. This is a great example of the Fellowship department helping Fellows themselves carry forward the RSA’s charitable mission.
‘Much done, much still to do’ as the old saying has it. The RSA has always been a great mixture of different ways of working but it’s when they start to overlap and reinforce each other that we really take off.
Recently I got into the habit of making up a new joke for every blog post. But when I stopped last week I only got one complaint. I can take a hint. So I’m not even going to ask you what you get when you let the devil run the national grid…
Powerful sinergy
Small but perfectly informed
After yesterday’s massive screed of a blog (someone sent me a text saying ‘I read the first half but had to stop when I realised I was losing the will to live’), something shorter and lighter.
I gave a lunchtime talk today to ACEVO (the third sector CEOs’ organisation). When they first asked me they said forty people were coming, then it was nineteen, then twelve and finally eight of us sat down to lamb cutlets or sea bass. Despite the slight collateral damage to the battered Taylor ego (still smarting after being left off the Metro ‘top 6,000 quite intelligent Londoners called Matthew’ list), it was actually quite nice to be in a small group.
I had decided not to make a big speech about 21st century enlightenment but to explore some of the challenges facing the third sector in the long period of austerity ahead. Being in the company of some very impressive leaders I ended up hearing a number of interesting points. One that will stick with me was the charity which sees its major corporate partners not only, or even primarily, as financial donors but as sources of organisational expertise, guidance and support. Rather than seeing the relationship as a way into money, this charity saw the donation as a way into a relationship. This is a thought and indeed an ambition I have had before but it was powerful to hear of it in practice.
Another was a point about collaboration to the effect that the best partnerships often start off being disinterested – just organisations wanting to find out more about, and learn from, each other. It is only later that the opportunities for joint projects and funding bids start to emerge. This contrasts with what has generally been my own experience – shotgun marriages of convenience. It made me think about which third sector organisations and leaders I most admire and whose aims most clearly align with our own, and also realise that I didn’t need to wait for a concrete proposal before suggesting a conversation.
Finally, I also heard about ACEVO’s report on the Big Society, which is being published on Monday. I shan’t break their embargo but from what I was told the report confirms – but this time with proper analysis and evidence – most of the concerns I have been airing on this blog. I hope to write more fully about the report when it is published.
Barking up the wrong tree
It really isn’t fair. I don’t just mean West Bromwich Albion being trounced yesterday by arch enemies Wolverhampton Wanderers nor even my son’s team (which I ineptly manage) losing twice at the weekend. At least there was some joy in being the proud son as my mother received a civic award from Southwark.
But the real hammer blow came on Sunday when I opened my Observer to see I didn’t come anywhere near its list of the country’s 300 top public intellectuals.
‘But why is that unfair’ I hear you say, ‘on what possible basis could you be described as a public intellectual and expect to be in the same esteemed company as the other 300?’ ‘Well’ I might reply in a petulant tone, ‘how about the fact that Guardian columnist Madeline Bunting said last week of David Brooks’ book, ‘The Social Animal’ which is apparently causing quite a stir among the political class: “It’s interesting how Brooks’ thesis is almost point by point similar to Matthew Taylor’s Royal Society of Arts lecture last June’ (NB Brooks is here at the RSA on the 19th).
‘Ah yes’, you might then say ’but that’s the point, David Brooks wrote a book while all you did was make a speech and write a pamphlet. You can’t be a public intellectual if you can’t write books’. At which point I would give up and disappear into a miasma of self-pity and self-loathing.
If only it was writing 400 word blogs or 1500 word articles that made the grade, then I might stand a chance, at least on the top 3,000 list.
Anyway, I’ve suffered for my failure to become a public intellectual, now it’s your turn. I have just drafted a short chapter for an American book on sustainability. I have built it round the RSA’s 21st century enlightenment strapline and, as it will only appear in America, I can share it with you and ask you to offer any comments before I send it off on Wednesday.
Thus in a week which seems destined to lower my fragile self-esteem even further, there will at least be one claim I can confidently make: ‘Hi mum, I know you are a civic leader, a local historian and have the freedom of Southwark but, guess what, I have written a really, really, really long blog’.
Sadly, this boast is about as impressive as an offer I once saw in Private Eye: ‘special limited edition readers’ offer – only £499.99, the world’s largest bonsai tree’…..
‘Mind the gap – a different take on sustainability ‘
It has been said that the really significant divide in politics is not between the left and right but between optimists and pessimists. Here at the RSA I chair many events at which public intellectuals give their various prophesies. On issues of sustainability there certainly is a divide between those who think that technology and human ingenuity will solve tomorrow’s problems just as they did yesterday’s and concerned environmentalists whose conclusions tends to be some version of ‘we can’t go on like this’.
Perhaps it is just that I am a pragmatic middle of the road kind of person but I find neither account satisfactory. Of the optimists I want to ask ‘why should we assume this problem can be solved, perhaps it is different?’ or ‘haven’t you read your Jared Diamond, civilisations do collapse and precisely because they failed to address a crisis which appears in retrospect to have been staring them in the face?’ or ‘yes, we may solve our problems in the end but at what cost in human suffering and waste?’.
To the pessimists I want to ask ’why is it that we have been saying for so long that things like oil were going to run out but then there always seems to be more?’ or ‘how do you reconcile your humanism with such apparent pessimism of human beings to find solutions?’ and – although this I say sotto voce – ‘aren’t you concerned that you sound almost pleased at all the bad news you have to share?’.
This may be why I developed a more modest view of the future. I suggest that that the United Kingdom faces what I inelegantly call ‘a social aspiration gap’. The problem for this country is not that people generally have radically different ideas of the kind of future they would like for themselves and their society. We want to live somewhere which is economically comfortable, which protects and expands freedom but also avoids gross inequality, with decent public services and a peaceful and tolerant public sphere and, yes, we do want to safeguard our environment and play our role in saving the planet. The problem is not that we disagree about our aspirations, it is we are unlikely to fulfil them if we don’t significantly change some of the ways we think and act; that is the social aspiration gap.
Let me offer some concrete examples:
Successful countries balance short term demands with long term investment. Leaders have to be able to make difficult decisions creating losers as well as winners. Arguably, right now enlightened autocracies like China are better able to do this than mature democracies. The democratic conversation needs to be more substantive, honest and two-way.
The UK health service is facing its tightest budget settlement for many decades and in the longer term faces a growing burden in the form of chronic conditions affecting an ageing population. Yet one of the biggest drivers of demand for health care are our own lifestyles, drinking too much, eating too much, exercising too little, not managing long term conditions.
For Britain to be a successful economy we need citizens who are well-educated, creative and risk taking. There are things Government can and should do to shape tomorrow’s citizens, but this is also involves a shift in our national culture so that we prize invention over mere accumulation and see learning as a life-long habit.
The trade off point between economic growth and environmental sustainability can be much higher if we voluntarily take actions to reduce our carbon emissions and unnecessary waste. Closing the social aspiration gap is an important part of any strategy for environmental sustainability.
Before I go on I need to address an often tacit but powerful objection to this very idea that we – the people –can choose to change the way we are.
Over the last few decades, thinkers on the sociological left and economic right have shared a common prejudice: public ideas don’t really matter. On the left the ideas are seen as merely an epiphenomenon of deeper social forces, on the right culture is marginalised in a theory which sees the efficient society as one comprised by individual preferences revealed in market transactions. Of course, ideas are more powerful if they intersect with social forces, of course they are more likely to succeed if they coincide with our personal predispositions, but this isn’t the end of the story.
Let me offer two examples of significant social trends which are inexplicable without recognising the way ideas can change the world. The first is the transformation in attitudes to homosexuality. It is hard to explain this in terms of shifts either in individual preferences – why would so many more people suddenly become gay or why would so many people now be tolerant when their parents were viscerally prejudiced – or in underlying social forces – capitalism seems just as able to thrive in homophobic as in liberated societies. Instead, an important part of the shift comes from the way the gay community and its supporters responded to the threat of AIDS; rather than retreating into the shadows the response was one of mobilisation, pride and self-help.
A different example is the growth of Fair Trade. Did we suddenly grow a social conscience? Did capitalism need a new market in ethical goods? Or was it that crusading leadership, business skills and social organisation found a way to tap in to human altruism so that an idea which had for many years been largely confined to stalls outside churches moved to the aisles of every major supermarket?
One reason ideas matter for society is that human beings and human behaviour is complex. Over recent decades a variety of disciplines ranging from neuroscience to evolutionary psychology to behavioural economics have undermined the reductionist view of human beings as mere agents of impersonal forces or of society as being nothing more than the aggregation of possessive individualism.
We know that most of our actions are instinctive and automatic, not the consequence of rational and conscious calculation. Indeed we know that often conscious thought is a confirmation of an automatic impulse rather than what drives our behaviour. We know also that we are profoundly social beings. Role playing experiments show how much our personality and our judgements can change if we are placed in different contexts with different prompts and norms. Long term social network analysis shows our behaviours and attitudes can be affected by changes among those in our circles of networks even at three degrees of separation.
We know also that we are many ways idiosyncratic. As advertisers know, our perceptions and assessment of value are heavily influenced by framing. We find it hard to bring the long term into the present and to do the things we ought to. Directly contradicting conventional economic theory it appears that monetary incentives actually inhibit our performance in complex tasks. And we are misguided; in many circumstances human beings are not very good at assessing their own abilities, at predicting their future, knowing what will make them happy and even accurately recalling what made them happy in the past. On the positive side we also know that most human beings seem to have an innate capacity for empathy and sense of fairness.
Reflecting both our 18th century origins and our modern mission, the RSA’s new strapline is ‘21st century enlightenment’. This idea combines our analysis of the social aspiration gap with new thinking about human nature and motivation and adds a philosophical dimension.
The original Western enlightenment was a complex and contested process but at its heart lay three revolutionary ideas: autonomy (the idea of human freedom), universalism (the idea of that all human beings are deserving of dignity and rights) and humanism (the idea that society should be organised not according to the rules of kings or bishops but to maximise human fulfilment).
The ‘21st century enlightenment’ approach suggests we need to re-examine and refresh the way we think about these ideas. On autonomy, we need to replace the idea that freedom is delivered through possessive individualism and instead promote the idea (one long propagated by the world’s religions) that genuine autonomy comes through deeper self-awareness and self-discipline. In relation to universalism we need to be slightly less focussed on the content of universalism – which rights, entailments, capabilities – and more on the foundations of universalism; what is it that fosters solidarity and the capacity for empathy we need in a shrinking world. And in relation to humanism we need to see past the compelling modern logics of markets, bureaucracy and science and technology to provide the spaces for a deeper more ethical and humanistic debate about the kind of future we want to build in our neighbourhoods, countries and world.
I began with pessimism and optimism. Over recent decades a powerful trend in many Western nations has been the steady rise in social pessimism: while people tend to be unrealistically optimistic about their own and their family’s prospects, they tend to be too pessimistic about the ability of society to change and advance. For example, not only did few people in the UK or US predict the decline in crime and certain other social pathologies which have taken place over the last decade, but many still refuse to believe it.
Social pessimism is an enemy of progressive thought. To believe we can create a sustainable future, and not just rely on technology to come to our rescue, requires us to believe we can choose to change. Just as the first Western enlightenment was ushered in by scientific breakthroughs which challenged religious doctrine, so new thinking about human nature can help challenge deterministic or individualistic accounts of human nature. This is not only the necessary context for sustainability, it can help redefine the very meaning of the term.
Lipsmackin’ thirstquenchin’ acetastin’…… valuepromotin’, responsibilitytakin….
Over the next 24 hours something will happen which I thought until recently was going to excite me enormously: the RSA Animate of my 2010 annual lecture will pass half a million views. Sadly, my anticipation of this moment was pretty much dissipated by the comments of one of this blog’s readers. He suggested that people watched the Animate for the pictures not my words, pointed out that my lecture has been watched fewer times than nearly all the other Animates (and a lot less than the most successful), and said the lesson I should take from the 3290 likes versus 67 dislikes on YouTube is not that I am being favoured 50 to 1 but that only 1 in 150 can be bothered to express an opinion.
As regular readers know, it doesn’t take much criticism for me to descend into self-doubt, so I will let the 500,000 landmark pass without further comment. (By the way, Professor, I am fully aware that self deprecation is nothing but artfully veiled narcissism.)
But if one positive aspect of 21stcentury enlightenment has been wrenched from my grasp, fortunately there is another to hand. In our recent Fellowship survey (based on a large and representative sample) the proportion of RSA Fellows who said they liked the new strap-line outnumbered those who opposed by 5 to 1. Given that new brands tend initially to annoy people (think of the 2012 Olympic logo, for example) this is a very good result.
This has helped reinforce my intention to make the focus of my 2011 lecture the 21st century enlightenment business (rather than an earlier idea of the 21st century enlightenment organisation, which I found just too hard to pin down).
I have read two things in the last few days which I will no doubt quote in the final lecture. The first is a fantastic book – ‘the strange non death of neo-liberalism’ – by Colin Crouch, Professor of Governance and Public Management at Warwick University. The book isn’t due to be published until June ( I am determined it should be launched here at the RSA) so I can’t reveal much, except to say that Professor Crouch makes a powerful argument for the importance of civil society organisations in balancing and challenging the power of Transnational Organisations both as economic and political actors.
The second was a report of a speech by the visionary CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi. I hope readers don’t mind, but I am going to quote her at some length:
“Especially over the last four or five years we have been shaping and evolving PepsiCo for the realities of a new environment that we believe is going to be quite a lot different over the next decade. I think the next decade will be defined by a number of trends that will have a big impact on our business and the broader industry. Let me just talk about five of these trends.
“First, the continued growth of emerging and developing markets. More than ever, any company’s growth is going to be defined to the extent to which they have a presence in developing and emerging markets. And I believe this trend will continue into the future as developed markets’ growth rates slow down and developing and emerging markets pickup.
“Second big trend, health and wellness — this is no longer a trend or a fad. This is here to stay. Profound changes are underway, both due to the aging population and significant pressure from external sources for consumers to change their lifestyles and to get healthier.
“Environment sustainability — I don’t want to spend any time talking about it. That’s a major trend that is here to stay.
“The other trend is the digital revolution. It has fully revolutionized the way we need to engage with consumers and the way we innovate.
“And lastly, the role of brands and their connection to a purpose. This is a relatively new trend, and recently we are beginning to notice that people the world over are relating to global brands if they connect to them through a higher purpose. Additionally, we’re also noticing, especially in the food and beverage space, that there appears to be a hark back to local brands which bring back good memories.”
Given my earlier musings about enlightened companies looking for a ‘sweet spot (an unintended pun in this context) where the goals of competitive success and making a benign social impact become mutually reinforcing, I find points two, three and five particularly interesting. Indeed, someone told me the other day (completely off the record so I am only sharing it with you, mum) that at a recent meeting of senior executives Indra Nooyi’s message was in essence: there’s no future in making money by persuading people to pour junk down their throats. I also note that the other day PepsiCo launched their first entirely plant-based bottle.
If a global brand like PepsiCo is thinking and acting like this, the idea that firms could become a major driver of progress in the next century seems less and less far-fetched.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
- RSAMatthew: Just off to do Moral Maze on the monarchy - I'm for the Queen
- RSAMatthew: @billgibbon thanks Bill - I really think the collaboration between Newcastle Council, Newcastle Uni, RSA and others could be special
- RSAMatthew: @NCC_Leader Thanks Nick - I will now steal your best ideas for my speech
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.