Binding Targets? Let’s talk about something else…Dec 14 Copenhagen Planery Minutes by Joseph Yu

This is reblogged from the Joseph Yu, a fellow BP 2041 Antarctica Expedition, Taiwanese-Canadian  MBA graduate currently based in Copenhagen,

poignantly hilarious and illuminating of what the entire UN/UNFCCC/Internaitonal negotiation process or the State of the World Affair is like.

Serena

Here is a part of what went on inside Bella Center, Copenhagen, during the negotiation among 193 nations’ representative, regarding the target setting of CO2 emission reduction —- this is the most crucial, and substantial part of any agreement that can emerge out of COP15, because these numbers will serve as the basis of legally binding targets for the nations.

I will first give a recap (it was a session delayed from morning till 9 PM, and lasted past midnight).
Note that I will simplify each country’s speech, and it won’t be the exact words the Negotiators have said. (I will also use brackets to place additional comments, for those of you who did not follow the climate debate to have an easier time understanding). After that, I will give my personal analysis of the situation.

The Chair (kinda like a judge, sitting in front of all countries’ representatives) begins the session by having the UN staff handing out a chart, with Developed Nations’ committed reduction targets between 2008 ~ 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. Also in the chart are 3 empty columns of different possible frameworks for 2013 ~ 2020, for numbers to be filled (so the nations only need to agree on which one of the 3 columns to use, and then fill in the essential numbers).

Japan begins: we suggest that nations can pick ANY of the 3 columns they want, instead of all nations using the same chosen column.And on top of that, we suggest that additional options be added …

(which I won’t elaborate here. But it shows that this crucial session starts, after 1 week of fruitless talk, with the expansion of chaos)

Bolivia: due to time constraint, we should not bring in any additional things out that are not in the mandate.

(this directly counters Japan’s proposal)

South Africa: yes, all nations should stick to year 1990 as the base year.

(under the Kyoto Protocol, the countries’ reduction target is measured against a base year, and that base year for 2008~2012 targets is set to be year 1990)

Micronesia: support. We need to have fewer alternatives and streamline the process, as we are running out of time. We have just wasted an entire week.

New Zealand: under Kyoto Protocol, 1990 is the base year for the First Commitment Period (that is 2008 ~ 2012), that is no doubt. However, NOTHING has been said about the measurement basis for the Second Commitment Period or future periods. A suggestion we like to make, is that countries can choose whichever year they want, as the base year to be measured against for future periods, but add an additional column showing its relative % as compared to 1990, so things look clear for all parties.

(this sounds reasonably plausible, but it is essentially to support Japan’s claim to expand complication, considering that we will then have 4 different columns for target numbers)

Canada: In the meeting in Barcelona, nations agreed that every country needs a base year, but it doesn’t mean all countries should necessarily have a COMMON base year.

Sweden (representing the EU, as it is of the EU presidency this year): and we also need to discuss Article 21 of the Kyoto Protocol, which is currently unsolved.

(now … one more issue is brought in, and no number has been filled yet)

UN Chair: we should focus on what this session is about – setting numerical targets. As for Article 21, I will speak to the Chief of Chairs regarding the issue, and perhaps address it in some other session.

Sweden: we challenge that. Who says nations need to seek consent from Chair Chief about a side issue? As far as we know, this is a session about us nations and what we want to discuss.

UN Chair: of course, I did not say that it isn’t.

Micronesia: There is an urgent need to focus. Our topic strays backwards. It might be intended for that or it might be not. Anyway, right now, we should keep the table the way it original is, and move forward. Keep the text as clean as possible so we can focus on the substance. If some nations have needs of exceptions, additional footnotes should do the job without problem. We need to focus on getting a legally binding treaty done.

(the female negotiator of Micronesia talks with convincing authority and a sense of urgency, and makes a lot of sense, however …)

Australia: we support EU

(that means the Swedish representative) regarding that Article 21 be addressed HERE before we move anywhere else. (in addition to this, Australia also brings up further complicated issues regarding how footnotes should be dealt with, which I won’t elaborate in details here)

China: some parties’ speeches are contradicting themselves. They bring in a lot of old issues that are not even about why we are here – setting numbers.

Japan: number is not so simple. There are lots of issues linked. We would like to see New Zealand’s proposal about adding one more column on the screen (there is a huge screen showing the electronic table file, so when nations speak their modifications, staff can change through the computer right away). Or perhaps Madam Chair can show us in new print-outs TOMORROW MORNING.
(when I heard this … I was in shock. I think Developing Nations’ negotiators were shaking their heads)

India (he gave a sigh): always a lot of new variations being brought up … we’ve been negotiating for 2 years. And now no one even knows where we are heading.

Colombia: we support using 1990 as base year, as all nations should.

(and then Colombia volunteers to give its own target, as the first nation in the discussion so far that brings up an ACTUAL NUMBER. But almost 2 hours have gone by already.)

Australia (cuts in quickly, countering against just settling with 1990): we are talking about a legal matter. We take it VERY SERIOUSLY. Maybe you are tired, but we are ready to work on it all night, and all tomorrow night, or for as long as it takes.

Sweden: in today’s morning, the flow of our discussion was interrupted. So now it’s late and we need to work late. We support Australia.

(I am not certain which issue he refers to regarding morning. Perhaps some deadlock between Developing Nations and Developed Nations again)

Nigeria: Let us NOT disturb our “developed country” friends. Let them WORK SERIOUSLY.
(it was under a sarcastic tone, and people laughed)

Bolivia: no one is moving forward … and this will not work. We seek guidance from Madam Chair, please. It is okay that we work all night, but it does not make sense to INVENT things to work on.

China: we are fully ready to work. But we are not moving at the same direction. The more we engage, the more we are apart, it is meaningless. They still bring in the same issues … same old ones that were mentioned in Bangkok, in Bonn …

After consulting with her Chair Panel, the UN Chair proposes that the talk be moved into smaller groups

(it means that no more Observers like me can watch. And each nation only sends 1 key person instead of 2~3 like now, to engage in more intimate negotiations behind closed doors). The UN Chair also says not to add additional things to the text.

Australia: we support the idea of moving to smaller groups. But we are against the non-addition part.
(so they still want to have opportunity to further complicate things)

Venezuela: I am lost. We are not moving anywhere.

New Zealand: the Ministers that are on their way flying here should be the one that can change or decide on the numbers. We are just here to get the text right. The direction of our talk, should be to facilitate Annex I parties (meaning Developed Nations under Kyoto Protocol. This excludes USA as it did not ratify the Protocol) to make commitments, as we are essentially the ones that matter. It should facilitate so that Annex I parties have an easier time making commitments.

Sweden: let’s be frank. For a long time we have seen this coming. For the past months everybody knew a lot of things were deadlocked.

Micronesia: is this what we are doing? “To make parties feel easier to make commitments”? We should think of our obligation to the environment and our future!

To wrap this up, Algeria and Sweden both propose to move to smaller group sessions. USA spoke only once, regarding a certain line of text that mentioned its country (as USA did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it is only an Observing Nation in this particular talk which is based under the Kyoto Protocol). Bolivia questions the Chair’s intention to move into smaller groups. Switzerland, Canada, Egypt each inquires the Chair once more regarding details of moving into smaller groups.

And the recap here has taken 4 hours, with no progress and no numbers set.

Joseph’s Personal Analysis:

It is obvious that the Developed Nations that voice in this session wish this particular negotiation to fall apart. The attempt is more than apparent, and they do not hide such intention (but the real interest behind this action may vary: building credible threat for other negotiation tracks; forcing the Developing Nations to make concessions in this and other tracks; a grand strategy that stalls the whole conference so countries like Japan will be free from the pre-set obligations that will end in 2012; etc etc). The industrialized countries have long wished to either eliminate Kyoto Protocol obligations for themselves, or drag the Developing Nations in on similar level of obligations. This essentially translate into international power play, tied with strategies for relative economical advancement, and political influence. But that’s another long topic, let’s focus on the schemes of Negotiation here.

The Alliance of the Developed Nations is more well-structured, with Japan, Sweden (EU), Australia, and New Zealand representing the power. Whether pre-determined or simply following Negotiators’ styles, each of these countries actually played a very specific role. Japan is clearly the one that drops bombs. Sweden (representing the entire EU) is the central force and the strongest voice. Australia is a sound supporter, and New Zealand serves as a counter-weight that balances issues, nevertheless further the direction of the coalition.

The Developed Nations (G-77 and China, Least Developed Countries, and Alliance of Small Island States) are not as well organized in this session. They are all feeling frustrated, and each of them voices concerns that are basically repetition of the same sentiment.

Now, for Developing Nations this is unfortunate, because THIS particular track of negotiation (AWG-KP) is what the Developing Nations value the most. Perhaps the industrialized nations ARE better trained in negotiation tactics.
Or, an alternative possibility is, since this is an open session for NGO observers, the Developing Nations wish to play the disheartened victims and send public messages across in order to increase external pressure. However, this should be unlikely as this is not the only session that shows a lack of structure among G-77, LDC, and AOSIS. And if they want the semi-public message to be effective, they should emphasize more on the common good (greater good), instead of individual frustration that has less aspiration value.

Moreover, note the frequency of “support” uttered by the Developed Nations of one another. The Developing Nations on the other hand, are a bit more loose, with stance characterized by frustration that gives nothing but satisfaction to their opponents.

There are a few fundamental issues, aside from the commonly known conflict area that Developing Nations wish to place social economical growth above (or at least parallel to) combating climate change, and that the industrialized nations wish to enclose more global players into the same level of obligation that match theirs:

First of all, in terms of underlying interest, within the broader bracket that all nations’ futures are tied together, each coalition (and nation) essentially focuses on its interest more, because they cannot help but project the relative position of power (taking economy, politics, social, cultural, demographical, and geographical elements all into consideration), and that accounts for major decision-making that is cast upon the long-term spectrum (kinda like Game Theory).

Second of all, in terms of Negotiating Power, the Developed Nations have much better alternatives (the so-called BATNA in Negotiation terms). They possess historically accumulated wealth, technologies, and systems. If the deal shall fall apart, poor African nations are the ones that suffer the most severely, and Small Island States (such as Maldives) will be the first ones to be buried under the sea. With better alternatives should the deal fall short, the Developed Nations have way more bargaining power, thus they can act cold-bloodedly calm in the face of this global crisis, in order to press their counterparts into making concessions.
(and in all areas of the COP15negotiation – mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance – the Developed Nations are all better off. And that serve as major powers to be manipulated during the talks)

Countries like China, while it may suffer more if it comes to deal-breaking, has been conducting two strategies simultaneously. Firstly of all, an alliance has been formed (the so-called “G77 and China”). At the beginning we have witnessed the 4-3-2 phenomenon of shifting alliances, but now things are pretty much solidified (but not without effort on China’s part). Secondly, China has been actively improving its BATNA (alternative). That’s why President Hu announced its ambitious goal (40~45% cut in 2020 as compared to 2005’s emission level) disregarding the grudges of regional/provincial governmental heads: it is a decision born not out of ambition, but of a lack of choice. China has sent a signal that it will not, and cannot, follow the historical industrialization path. It’s a win-or-fall gamble. Nevertheless, such alternative-buildings will only come to fruition in the next decade. As of now, China’s bargaining power is still weaker than the Developed Nations, as can be seen by the concession made on December 17th that it will set “standards of measurement” for its carbon emission (something that China did not wish to agree upon for the longest time, and was one of the major reasons of the Deadlock. This criteria was insisted by USA, which did not even ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The sheer fact that China abides to such a claim without sound legitimacy from USA’s part, signals the big nation’s weaker position).

What Japan did was considered a hardball tactic, but it only worked because of the structured coalition that backed it up. According to an UN PR staff’s private words to me, Sweden has sent a high-level negotiator to this session, so did New Zealand (USA on the other hand, sent a low-level negotiator to this session). Such acts signaled that the Developed Nations were ready to engage in a “serious negotiation”. Based on this premise, perhaps their tactics during the open session was to drive down the morale and patience level of their counterparts, thus making it easier to push for Developed Nations’ concessions during closed sessions (smaller groups), when the real deal-making should occur without public scrutiny.

With Ethiopia, Algeria, South Africa being the political centers, the African nations are very much united. Along with joint forces of China, India, and other emerging economies, the coalition of the Developed Nations have a good potential to make bargains. However, the inherent disadvantages (often associated with the population proportion in poverty, and the reasons mentioned above) make them start off in a much weaker position. (that’s also how the “Danish Text” scandal was exaggerated, by Developed Nations believing that Developing Nations were secretly aligned to make the deal favorable only to the richer nations.)
Nevertheless, the Developing Nations can leverage the public channel, antagonizing the industrialized countries for the lack of political will (and this can be a legitimate claim).
Moreover, with better structured negotiation tactics, they can do a much better job (for example, in the session above, Micronesia’s negotiator voiced rallying calls with dire passion. However, being a nation of small, scattered islands, her opponents all understood that playing hardball would make her lose composure, as her nation is the first one to sink. That deprives her of convincing power when negotiating with big players like the EU and Japan, without logical and tactical backing from China and India).

All in all, it was a frustrating session that made me learn plentiful.
I do not appreciate nations with greater power using subtle tactics to exploit those they are supposed to support, even though that is the way international relations usually work.
But everything else aside, people of all nations (ESPECIALLY those in the Developed Nations) DO wish to see leadership taking charge of creating a binding deal.

One more day, let’s see what happens.

夢@哥本哈根日记(一)：(很簡的)會議簡介

Reblogged from Marina Tse, one of the Climate Chance Copenhagen UNFCCC COP15 Delegate (accredited as part of Chinese Youth COP15 team)’s facebook notes:

從哥本哈根回來，昏睡了十二個小時，再魂遊了一整天，讓

自己沉澱，但其實我沒有預期中混亂。

該說的話還是要說。

先來一個總結。

是次聯合國氣候變化峰會，全稱是聯合國氣候變化框架公約第15次締約方會議(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15)，簡稱COP15。

兩星期的會議過程用幾段話說明就是這樣：

一開始大家吵得很烈的是還要不要延續KP(Kyoto Protocol，京都議定書)，吵到最後決定還是留下吧。這時會議已經進行了一半，而其他議題如減排目標、資金來源、技術轉移……有在談。

之後主席辭職換上了丹麥首相不顧會議既定程序空降了一分協議草案，並試圖強制進入高級別討論，發展中國家憤怒：這文案一不合會議程序、二不知是哪兒來的、三事先沒交代它的出現、四沒我們的同意，你想討論啥？

發達國家出奇沉默。鬧劇的結果是丹麥首相坐不下去，原來的主席一兩天後又回來了。

大約同一時間，Hillary Clinton發表了一段冠冕堂皇的演講，說美國願意與其他發達國家一起發動(mobolize)一千億美元的資金援助發展中國家，但大前提是“減排行動必須透明”。

於是形勢急速逆轉。Clinton的言論不用說是針對中國，因為中國將減排目標訂為“自願”性質，不受國際約束，不做MRV (measurable reportable verifiable)。美國的高招是如果在哥本哈根達不成協議理由會是中國固執不妥協。

中國壓力暴增。雖然你不很仔細也可以看出來美國壓根兒沒說自己會掏腰包給多少錢。

會議廳裡又回來的主席帶來了Friends of Chair的提議，就是找一些國家代表小組討論一下再來匯報(不然這一百九十多個國家代表可以定居會場了)。之後幾經周折經過多次(不同的)小組討論，出來了所謂的哥本哈根協議(Copenhagen Accord)。

所有人精疲力盡。

如果你沒留意會議進展希望以上幾段話能讓你明白，(很無聊的)會議觀察明天再寫。

(我已回到香港時間了，可以重新過早睡早起的生活，各位晚安)

Some practical questions

Found a very honest blog article that both raises some practical questions and gives pertinent answers.

Read the article on the blog website of Malaysian Youth Climate Justice Network

Posted by Jessica

Copenhagen Reflection by Kartikeya- Battle Until Dawn over Humanity’s Survival

Here is a good post COP15 reflection written by our long time old frined (since Bali Delegation) - Kartikeya Singh, Co-founder, Indian Youth Climate Network, fellow BP 2041 Antarctica Expedition teammates  - very inspiring and succinctly captures the whole grand picture:

He is now in Harvard doing doctor degree:

It is 6:13 am and in the Bella Conference Center I am listening to the chair of the AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) trying to fight off uncontrollable tears. I am almost certain that the Group of 77 (a behemoth of 130 plus developing country states) is coming to an end. Countries are divided and I am witnessing accusations fly across the plenary. Why has it taken us so long to arrive at this point? We sit here with the “Copenhangen Accord” staring at our faces. It is a document full of hot air and is not what billions of people across the planet had been promised to deliver atmospheric restitution. Once again the developed nations have managed to gain somewhat of an upper hand in the wake of greater sacrifices of the larger developing countries.

That aside, negotiators had feared from day one of the talks that the documents and the process of negotiating would not mature to the point required in order to allow negotiations to move into the high level segment where over 100 Heads of States would come to sign a just climate deal. Their fears were realized. The process has been deeply flawed and the voices of nations regarding lack of transparency, conspiracy to kill off the Kyoto protocol has been true. I often found myself being witness to the injustice within the UNFCCC process (where had I not gone to certain meetings, I would have missed out on joint drafting sessions which I assumed were only scheduled G-77 coordination meetings). Text messages were sent, rooms were changed, information was not available to all.

All of this, in the wake of the greatest climate conference the world has ever seen since the birth of the Convention some 18 years ago. Why did it take us so long? How did we get so bitterly entrenched in this process? I have seen and learned more about the process as a negotiator in the last 2 weeks than I could have my entire life. As a result, I have become deeply disillusioned. Two nights ago, at the launch of the Maldives “Survival Kit” for nations, President Nasheed had all but given up on the process and called on youth to take to the streets and make this the absolute issue in politics. For nations like the Maldives that lie 1.5 meters above sea level at their highest point, this is an issue of their survival. I would agree.

After a bitter impasse, and stalling of the talks due to the flawed process, negotiators had still not made progress on many of the key issues. In the group discussing “enhanced action on mitigation” I found myself transported back in time as if no progress had been made between the developed and rapidly developing countries on any of the points on emissions reductions. On the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries, the parties talked in circles and could not arrive at any concrete conclusions. Finally the Heads of States arrived adding further confusion to an already impossible situation. Having lost a day and half due to the boycott of the talks by members of the African Group and other major developing countries didn’t help but probably was the only thing that kept the two track process (the Kyoto protocol) alive. Late last night, the heads of 25 nations were invited as part of a “friends of the chair” group to help broker a deal: United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Maldives, Grenada, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Algeria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Bangladesh, France, Gabon, and three others. The leaders of this group tried to hammer out a rough document to provide the basis for further negotiations. This is the “Copenhagen Accord“.

The deal is far from perfect. It is non-binding for starters and has a range of base years from which the many countries putting up targets can choose. If one looks closely, there is probably no way that it meets the 2 degrees guard rail target that we need at the MOST in order to avert a run-away climate disaster (even though it claims to use 2 degrees as the upper limit). It is far from what the islands need, far from what the Least Developed Nations require and still leaves many questions to be resolved. Yet it is the only thing that can salvage the absolute and utter lack of trust and faith that has been built up over the last two years between parties of the United Nations. Climate poses the biggest question to humanity as to whether or not we are going to be able to save ourselves. That is after all, what we are trying to do here. At this time, what we need is trust, faith, and greater understanding to move forward. I am only 25 years old. I fear bringing children into this world and as I sit here listening to nation after nation make statements in favor of or against supporting the passing of the Copenhagen Accord, I am now as uncertain as ever as to the future of humanity.

We have not attained “climate justice” here today. Nor have we secured our future. Outside over 200 protesters mobilized to arrive at the conference center to organize a “Shame Vigil.” Mind you civil society suffered the most fatal defeat during these talks by having been forcibly locked out in the final days. However, with an unprecedented over 45,000 registered delegates to the talks I think we have indeed arrived at a crucial point where the movement is unstoppable and will only continue to grow. It is 7:00 am on December 19th and I am unsure as to what the outcome will be. I leave you with this:

“In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.” –Severn Suzuki (age 12), Rio Earth Summit 1992

Tackle the consciousness, not the symptom - Climate Change COP 15 Message

This video is features the best speech of the century - and speaks for me; at least my inability to speak or write since I had an experience merging with the ocean in Antarctica as well as participating in “Bohm Dialogue” or conversations which focus on possibilities and inner selves, as well as meditation.

To me, people conduct current actions in a way that is consistent with future as they perceive it. One of the cause of inaction (to climate change etc)  is our fixation on achieving the goals - we pay so much attention to creating the “future” (which is in some forms of an American dream or the other)  that we forget to take care of our state of being, how we feel right now (stress, frustration, or patterned complaints)

The fixation on future, like everything else, goes down to perceiving self as separated from the “others,” our external realities. After all, it is “my future” and not future of humanity or planet earth i am working hard for! - and this, according to this scientists- is because of the work of our left hemisphere of the brain.

This video gives a scientific backing through evidence of actual personal experience (which is always less suspicious to me in terms of admissibility and veracity of evidence)

and it reminds me of Didi Sarvagyia, who cried for me, when i told her my story - similar to this scientist.

P.S.

My friends and team-mates are at COP 15 (Dec 7-18th) right now!

Here is the message we are delivered in the form of 3000 postcards (and on our sustainability bags, hoodies etc)

Please become  http://apps.facebook.com/causes/causes/415927/

a member of the facebook cause and invite more people to spread the message before Dec 18th end of the Climate Negotiation UNFCCC COP15 and get the postcard sent to yourself or friends from Copenhagen.

Why i support it:

The negotiation is not going anywhere now, but scientists say that’s better for the world.  I agree.

National Sovereignty is the foundation of International Environmental Law and treaties (including the Kyoto Protocol), but the broader context is that United Nation’s budget is only 1.8 % of the World’s Annual Military Expenditure - $1.5 trillion ($1,500,000,000,000) - What is national interest? who is it really serving?


My proposal is that without re-imagining what does it mean to be a human being in this planet - what it takes to be happy - any resolutions will reinforce the unjust system which led us to here in the first place.

In a world of multinationals (top 200 combined sales of corporates are bigger than all nations GDP combined minus top 50), it is up to us and not the politicians, who can vote through everything we buy and not to buy —that will lead us to a possibilities and a future different from the past.

Seeing the choice we have in our hands, now, is critical.


Statistic based on:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business
http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations

N. Kristof @ NY Times—re: new humanitarian aid model

Reblog from allowthenow:

I’m grateful that my friend Alissa shared this great NYT article written by Nicholas Kristof that, in effect, talks about the need for a new humanitarian aid model…

———————————————

Here was my message to him:

Dear Mr. Kristof,

I’m writing in response to your article, “How Can We Help the World’s Poor?”

I just recently returned from a humanitarian trip to Rwanda, Africa where I was part of a team that worked with several hundred orphaned survivors of the ‘94 genocide suffering from complex PTSD.

All details, including lots of photos and videos are on my blog:http://mtpglobal.blogspot.com/search/label/mtpRwanda.

What I want to say here is that the more we can work on the internal needs (psychological/emotional) the easier external solutions (to issues such as poverty, homelessness, etc.) will be found.

I think the biggest problem with humanitarian aid is that most humanitarian organizations/ventures are working on the level of “symptom” and not addressing the level where the real problems reside—which invariably is the level of human consciousness.

If we want change, then it is on the level of consciousness we must look. This is true for the United States as well. Einstein’s, “Problems are not solved on the level of consciousness that created them” comes to mind.

I’d be happy to talk about this further, if you were interested.

Thank you.

Christopher Lowman

梁文道：有梦想，但梦想什么？

本篇文章来源于 中国艺术批评 转载请以链接形式注明出处

网址：http://www.zgyspp.com/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=18971&Page=2

（引言）

今天中国大陆的年轻人，用短短几年把世界各地的年轻人几代间经历过的想法、潮流，一下子消化起来，是很混杂的，很难做简单的判断。

一

许多在中国的外国观察家有一个简单的推理：一个国家如果开始了市场经济，那么在这个市场经济条件下成长起来的年轻人，必然会成为民主运动的主力。

这是一个冷战时期的意识形态，今天看来已经过时甚至已经破产。它是说一个国家只要走上了资本主义道路，那么它的政治结构也必然会变得民主，变成所谓“西方的自由、民主”，如果用这么简单的历史观来看中国，那么你得出的结论就是：中国新一代的年轻人就会成为下一波政治改革运动的急先锋。我对这个说法非常怀疑。

我觉得大家忽略了几个原因。看“西藏事件”引起的反应就知道，当时很多外国人很惊讶，为什么这些年轻人——特别是到海外留学的那批——会那么愤怒，那么爱国？我一些在外国教书的朋友说，1980年代出来的留学生和现在的完全不一样，以前的留学生刚出来没多久，就对中国政府有一大堆批评和怀疑，为什么现在这代的年轻人反而那么爱国呢？

事实上今天中国这一代年轻人和1970年代、1960年代成长起来的人非常不一样。回想一下1960、70年代，那时社会资讯很不流通，物资很匮乏，而当时的中国还在一个从全能型的国家慢慢转变的阶段。在那个时代，要买东西是很困难的，买一个外国商品你可能需要去友谊商城，还需要外汇券，你要看外国的资讯是很复杂的，听外国的流行歌曲甚至是一种政治冒险。那时候成长起来的年轻人，会天然地感到自己身上的所有限制，是和这个政权联系在一起的，他/她对政府的怀疑、不满，甚至是批判是天然的。

1980年代出生的人截然不同。对他/她们来讲，这是没有必要的。我为什么不满意？你刚刚出了iPhone我有钱我也买得到，什么外国产品我都有，有钱我买真货，没钱我买假货。

以前看外国电影很困难，张艺谋还在当学生的时候，一帮人凑到友谊宾馆，开了一个小房间，几个香港朋友带录像带上来给他们看，哦，原来这是安东尼奥尼啊。现在我们到街上随便一个小摊贩说不定都有一套安东尼奥尼，我有什么不自由？你说我言论不自由我天天在网上骂人骂得很快乐啊，那你们干嘛批评我们？你们外国干嘛批评我们不自由？

这种自由是一种消费上的自由，在1980年代的台湾和香港，甚至今天的香港，我都见过这样的情绪。我们会把这种买卖的自由、购物的自由当成是一种人权。以前是从消费上的不自由感觉到这个国家的不自由，现在我们在消费上很自由，甚至某种程度言论也很自由，那还有什么问题？所以这一代的年轻人不会有上一代年轻人那么多的愤怒、不满、怀疑，和批判。而且他/她出生的时候是看到这个国家是在崛起的，看到这个国家在物质生活各个方面越来越好，他/她干嘛要怀疑？从这个角度来看，这一代的年轻人又很有自信心，这些复杂的年轻的特质，不是西方观察家心目中理想的促进中国政治变革的那种人。

可是我仍然觉得他/他们会改变，经历过“文革”的年轻人对政府会很不屑，觉得你都在骗我，别说谎了,那么这一代年轻人不会对政府不满，但是会有一些很切实的要求，比如说我要一个很安全很舒适的生活环境，一些很具体的权利，而这些具体的权利可能是政府都很难拒绝的，比如我要喝没有毒的牛奶，政府能够说不行吗？而他/她们做这些要求的时候，组织方式，诉求的方式，都会比上一代更成熟，更稳重，更理性，更扎实。我觉得不能忽略这样的一些要求，这样的一种心态会带来的改变，未必是西方的中国观察家所想象的期望的那种变，但那是另一种改变。

二

台湾、香港的70后、80后年轻人，会比较像日本的70后、80后，那是因为大家的社会节奏或者发展的阶段比较接近，跟大陆是不一样的。在那种状况底下，会出现很奇怪的现象，比如最近日本好多学者比较关心的问题，“下流志向”。什么叫做“下流志向”？以前说一个人的志向是往上的，我希望钱赚得越来越多，我希望生活越来越好，要有志气，可是现在日本出现了一个很奇怪的现象，年轻人的志气是往下的。就是说，我不想读书读得很好，我也不想有份越来越好的工作，我甚至想失业。所以你看日本今天的教育，小学生上课的时候，前面一半坐在那里乖乖的听老师讲，后面一半在散步——真的在教室里面散步，聊天，老师也不管，管不了。日本大学生的英语比之前退步很多，现在所达到的就是以前高中的水平，甚至初中。

我觉得台湾和香港也是同样的情况，比如说我在香港有一个出版社，我要负责面试一些人，一些年轻人，我问过他/她们：你有什么嗜好？他们会说：“睡觉”。Ok，那我说，你平时的休闲是什么？“睡觉”。啊？就“睡觉”啊，“睡觉”怎么能成为嗜好呢？对于我这一代人很难理解的，“那你要来我出版社工作，平时看些什么书?”“我不喜欢看书。”“可是我们是要出版书的。”他说：“那我出书就好，出书不一定就要看书，我出书是要给别人看。”

这些答案匪夷所思的地方在哪里？前十年、二十年，年轻人可能会说谎，他/她可能不大爱看书，但是他/她可能会说：我最喜欢《战争与和平》，莎士比亚，《红楼梦》，等等。但现在的年轻人是不骗你的，很坦白：“我不看书的。”换句话说，他不觉得这是问题。这到底是怎么回事呢？很多人就会说，一代不如一代。我觉得不是这个问题。我觉得香港、台湾，日本这些年轻人，处在这样一个社会时期，他/她从小就发现，那种“努力读书、好好工作，换取一个很好的生活，再忙碌、生活再好一些、再有钱”的想法——这样的一种想法，本来是支撑战后东亚经济发展的基本动力——现在是破产的。

我不会责怪这些年轻人，这是整个社会的问题。因为我们看不到未来是什么样子，希望在哪里？当你看到自己的父亲衰老、疲倦、平庸，那我干嘛要好好读书？为了将来有个好工作？拜托你别跟我说这种废话。

但是大陆不一样，大陆整个社会节奏是不一样的。我只从我最了解的一个行业来讲，比如我做媒体，我在香港、台湾碰到的所有媒体的老总，报纸的社长，总编辑……都是50岁以上，甚至更老，但是我在大陆遇到的好多老总是30来岁。这是一个二十多年前香港走过的路，30多岁就能管一家报纸，下面几千人，那是因为在成长的阶段，市场突然扩大了，过去媒体就是那几家，但现在突然多了那么多出来，大家都要人，机会在无限地扩大，你永远不知道明天有什么东西等着你，你对未来的期望还是乐观的，你会觉得未来会比今天更好。可是台湾和香港却不是这样的，你看到前面的路是越堵越死的。香港回归之后看到太多大陆崛起的消息，香港年轻人现在接触到很多大陆来的年轻人，和他/她们一起学习，甚至一起工作，奇怪的是，当他/她发现这些大陆来的同学或者同事，那么努力，那么有志气，那么优秀的时候，他/她不会想说我和你们拼了，他/她会说，那我就算了，好累。

换句话说，台湾、香港、日本已经走入一个相对稳定、甚至衰老的社会，而大陆还在往前，窗户很大，我觉得这会影响年轻人对自己的看法，对未来的看法。

很多年前我在香港和一个朋友做一个剧场作品，里面有一段是video，很好玩。我们去街上访问了大概100个人，只问两个问题，第一个问题是：“你觉得自己会越来越好还是越来越坏？”第二个问题是：“你会觉得社会会越来越好还是越来越坏？”结果呢，全部剪辑起来，笑死人了，90%以上的人都说：我觉得我自己会越来越好，而社会会越来越坏。那每个人都越来越好，社会怎么会越来越坏呢？

你可以看到，十年前香港这个社会变得很原子化，每个人都会觉得我的成功、我的失败是靠我自己的，我对自己有信心，所以我自己会越来越好，但当时大家可能已经感觉到这个社会很糟，会越来越糟。我相信今天当我再去做这样一个作品，说不定百分之百的人都会说我自己会越来越糟，社会也会越来越糟。但我觉得在大陆问这个问题，人们可能会说我自己会越来越好，而社会也会越来越好。我觉得这两个问题放在一起是很好玩的，你能够看到人们怎么看自己，怎么看社会，更重要的是可以看到怎么认知自己和社会，和其他人的关系。

比如香港今年的立法会选举前，出现了政治上世代交替的呼声，越来越多的年轻人说我们对老一辈的那些政治人物很不耐烦，要有新一代出来，整个社会也在呼唤年轻人出来。香港最近有一个很活跃的团体叫做round table，有几百个成员，是一个智囊组织，几百个大专院校，研究院，或者政党的年轻人，做各种各样的政治研究、政策研究。有很多这类的小团体在出现，好像新一代的年轻人要有自己的主张，要有自己的说法了。可是我觉得我们整个社会对这批年轻人，真的是太关注了，就是连政府在委任新官员的时候都会从这些组织里面挑一个出来——一个才30岁的年轻人被聘请到政府里做高官，过去从来没有过行政管理经验，只在报纸上写过几篇政论文章，现在给他月薪是接近二十万港币、有司机接送的那种官员，你可以看到整个社会很焦虑，我们的下一代在那里？都在等，都在想，于是出来一个年轻人，大家就说：啊，他是我们的希望。

可是我觉得这个希望是很不切合实际的，为什么呢？因为我看到的只有年轻人，我看不到有新的主张。我研究了他们一两年，这群人，有的是我同辈，有的比我年轻，我观察他们说的东西，大家都在说，我们要摆脱过去的东西，我们要摆脱“民主”还是“亲中”这样的二元对立，我们要有新的说法，新的主张，我们年轻人不再那么搞。Ok，那你告诉我第三条路具体来讲是什么，他又说不出来。甚至这次选举，我看到好多新面孔，但是他/她玩的游戏，选举操作的方式，竞选的策略，跟上一代没有什么分别。

我觉得台湾也有一样的情况，大家都说我们对“统”、“独”很厌倦，不要再搞了好不好，不要再讲了好不好，我们能不能超越它，有一个新的东西拿出来。但你说的超越统独是什么？我们还没有办法用一种很清晰、很庶民的语言把它勾勒出来，让大家相信这是一个未来。相反，我看到的是什么呢？就是台港两地的主流政治界所提出的第三条路，香港是超越所谓的民主和亲中，台湾来讲，就是超越所谓的“统”和“独”，这两边的第三条路都强调的是什么呢？就叫做实干，象国民党赢台湾“大选”，标榜的就是我们拼经济，实干。当大家都在讲实干的时候，其实就是废话，为什么呢？当我们不要争论，要干实事，那告诉我实事是什么？实事就是发展经济，你想发展经济，就要有相应的对策，经济发展的方向是什么呢？结果你讲出来的那套方法还是原来的老方法，没有新的东西，我们知道任何社会当你要发展经济，社会要发展，你要定出方向的时候，永远都是一个意识形态的选择，没有一种是ideology free（不受意识形态影响）的经济发展道路，这是不存在的。当他/她说不要意识形态，只要经济发展的时候，这其实是一种空泛的修辞。我很讨厌美国共和党，所以当我看到奥巴马，他出的几本书我都很认真的看完，看了半天我都看不出他所说的change，change……change to what？to where？你要向什么东西改变？我看不到，yes，we can….yes，we can……我们能改变，能改变什么？向什么方向改变，我觉得现在台湾和香港都是这样，都有梦想，那梦想什么？我们呼唤年轻人，年轻人也出来了，但这些年轻人也说不出什么新东西，他唯一标榜的就是他的年轻。但是年纪的长幼和议题的新旧是两回事。

三

虽然我刚刚说的很悲观，但是对台港两地的年轻人，或者说对社会，我仍然有某种希望在里面。我觉得台港两地之所以有瓶颈，是因为现在台面上的主流人物，社会上的主流论述，是冷战遗留，是东亚经济发展的一个残骸。他们这一代人所相信的，就是高速经济增长和发展换来社会的繁荣，低失业率，等等。比如说香港过去标榜，我们是世界上最自由的地方，最自由的经济体系，遍地黄金的社会，到处是机会，只要你努力，就可以获得很好的生活。可是在过去两三年，香港开始有一些零星的说法，它还没有形成很主流，很清晰，能够自圆其说的一套论述，但是局部的说法出来了，比如说香港那么喜欢拆房子，盖新楼，用地产带动经济，这套逻辑开始被怀疑，很多人说：我们能不能不单讲经济发展，我们要讲生活质量，能不能不要只是注重GDP的增长，我们要注重环境的保护。

这是第二次现代化的一个趋势，用德国社会学家乌里希·贝克的说法，第二次现代化就是对第一次现代化的主张的反省。我觉得香港到了这个环境了。我们开始反省上一代人所相信的那种社会潮流，那种资本主义的现代化的立场是不是要改变了。

但是第二次现代化是一种梦想，这个梦想还不是很具体。上一代人的梦想是很具体的，就是我要从香港深水埗的旧堂楼搬到尖沙咀附近比较好的房子，最后的终极目标是要上山顶。那是一个楼梯，很实在、很清楚的。我要从搭公交车，到开个私家车，是很具体的。这代人的梦想，我觉得大陆、香港现在的年轻人，可能都还有这些，可是又多了些别的东西。那种东西是我刚才所说那种人生。他/她可能说，我的梦想是要开一家小店，我也不要发财，就做自己喜欢的事情，好玩的事情就行。我的梦想是去旅行，我的梦想是到什么地方去修行。

这种奇奇怪怪的梦想都开始出来了，但这种梦想是一种还没法清晰说明的梦想。这种不实在的梦想反而更好，因为它牵涉的是一个根本的社会选择，就是说我们能不能够有另一个社会，这个社会是不同的选择方式。这个东西很吊诡的是，它一方面很保守，我们常常讲社会提供很多选择，不同的生活方式，这常常是很市场化的，也就是说所谓提供给你life style，每个杂志都告诉你有多少种life style，你可以坐游艇，你可以坐私人飞机，这是一种消费的life style的选择；另一方面，它也有可能变成很激进的，我们要一个不一样的社会，要有不一样的游戏规则。

这是对上一个时代的反叛，这个反叛很奇怪，一方面看起来很强悍，年轻人会上街示威，但与此同时，这和我开始所描述的那种“我不想工作”，又有点相互的关联，就是说我不愿意象上一代人所说的那样努力念书，努力工作，好像看起来很消极，但是同时，这是对整个社会运作逻辑的质疑，就是说“为什么人一定要工作吗？人一定要念书念得很好然后有很体面的工作，赚取很好的生活吗？”我拒绝去找一份很稳当的工作，是因为我想有更多的时间骑脚踏车，这难道是错的吗？我赚够了一笔钱，也不想买房子，我只想到哪里去玩一个月，把钱花光回来再说，这难道一定是不对的吗？这样的对以前社会运作逻辑的根本的怀疑，我觉得在港台两地都出现了。

看大陆，大陆现在好像是在重复前十年、二十年台湾香港走过的路，但又有点不一样。毕竟这个社会是同步运行的，所以大陆的年轻人，80后，90后，也会出现那种刚刚我们在台港两地所谈到的现象，他/她们是混杂的，一方面觉得前面是有希望的，我能够做很多事情，但是他/她也会觉得，我也可以活得很有原则，我可以有别的生活方式。

整体来讲我觉得比较难描述和归纳大陆这一代，其实改革开放三十年来我都很难归纳大陆的各个方面应该走一个什么样的道路，比如改革开放头10年，1980年“文化热”，中国大陆的文化界用十年时间消化掉从弗洛伊德到马克思·韦伯，一直到后现代100年的东西，我觉得今天中国大陆的年轻人也是一样，用短短几年把世界各地的年轻人几代间经历过的想法、潮流，一下子消化起来，是很混杂的，很难做简单的判断。

比如说我刚刚讲过，大陆的年轻人处在一个似乎未来是充满希望的、很光明的心态，但同时也有很多这样的人，想要过不同的生活，而这个不同的生活是要有不同的社会环境去体现，去承载的。所以现在很难讲，它到底往更保守的方向，还是更激进的方向发展，现在还很难判断。

这很有趣，因为我常常在反省一个事情，我在凤凰卫视做电视节目，这是一个很古怪的媒体，在北京也不是每家都能够看得到，但是可能在某些学校、某些小区、某些酒店是能看到的。有的农村也是能够看到凤凰卫视的，所以有时候我会收到农村的年轻人寄给我的信，我看那些信的时候，心情会很复杂。为什么呢？他们会跟我说，我迟早会离开农村，我要出来看看这个世界是怎么样的。仿佛我、凤凰卫视，以及所有的电视媒体、主流媒体，一天到晚都在向农村播送，告诉他/她们外面是什么样的一个花花世界，那边有什么样的好东西，给它一个梦想，使他/她有那种越强烈的我要出来闯、我要出来干一番事业、我要出来见见世面的那种感觉。看看我们的报纸，中国的贫富差距那么大，城乡对比那么悬殊，可是大家看到的媒体报道都是相同的，今年圣诞节什么酒店有什么大餐，今年的春装怎么样……你跟一个年收入1000多人民币的家庭的年轻人说米兰的春装，他/她怎么去解读这个信息？很难怪他/她们都要出来。

这个过程里面，我每次都觉得不安的地方在那里？我们在城市里面的人太容易，太想当然了。我不知道，那种想出来的愿望，很多人说这是志气，但我很怀疑，这是志气吗？还是是一个错误的幻觉？他/她有很多的寄望，但是将要破裂，或者发现自己完成不了的时候，还是那个东西吗？我在珠三角碰到好多女工，带着很多理想来到深圳，来到东莞，收入比在农村的时候好多了，可是她天天看到的是什么？东莞是个很变态的地方，全国五星级酒店最密集的地方可能就是东莞，天天看到很多老板出入，吃、喝，昂贵的消费，然后自己拿这样的薪水，这就是外面的世界吗？打完工回去吗？还是留下来？留下来又怎么样？

有那么多那么多的问题，我真不知道。我们做媒体的应该去反省，大众传媒那么均质化的散布在全国，我们传递出的讯息到底造成了什么样的影响，给了他/她们一个什么样的世界观和希望，而这样的世界观和希望会对他/她们形成什么，我真的不敢讲。

Another perspective on “carbon” - We are God

It is fasincating to see how “carbon” becomes a buzz world today. We breath it, we seek to reduce it, and we are made of it too!

In one of my previous wild hallucinations some time ago, i really saw god in all the people around me - and indeed, all the “gods” human beings have revered are painted in shape and face of human beings (to me). Although now i have found out there is much more to that.

This article links the two ideas together so here i share this interesting perspective: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-new-planet-earth-we-are-god-also.html

Serena

Conversation of Paradigm Shift V - Commitment

Part V  of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts

-    What matters is that it is made to public, peers – not to leaders (act of saying, or people write what they promise by hand, published)

-    commitment and refusal are ways foreword, “try  hard” or maybe is equivalent of “no”

-  OK to say  “I am willing to make no promise at this moment” – an act of integrity and supports community.

Example of Questions:

• a.    What promises am I willing to make?
• b.    What measures have meaning to me?
• c.    What price am I willing to pay?
• d.    What is the cost to others to keep my commitments or to fail in my commitments?
• e.    What is the promise I will to make that constitutes a risk or major shift for me?
• f.    What is the promise I am postponing?
• h. What is the promise or commitment I am unwilling to make?

Conversation of Paradigm Shift VI - Gifts

Part VI of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts

Brining the gifts of those on the margin into the center is primary task of leadership and citizenship.

It boils down to our willingness to stop telling people about:
a.    What they need to improve
b.    What didn’t go well
c.    How they should do it differently next time.

Instead, confront them with their gifts: Talk to others about:

1. The gift you have received from another in this room (tell the person in specific terms)
2. The unique strength you see in them
3. The capacities they have that bring something unique and needed in the world
4. What they did in the last ten minutes that made a difference.
5. What has someone in your small group done today that has touched you or moved your or been of value to you?

Further questions for oneself:
1-    what is the gift you currently hold in exile?
2-    What is it about you that nobody knows about?
3-    What are you grateful for that has gone unspoken?
4-    What is the positive feedback you receive that still surprises you?
5-    What is the gift you have that you do not fully acknowledge?

Conversation of Paradigm Shift III- Ownership

Ask the single most important question:

How have I contributed to creating the current reality?

Why?

Confusion, blame, waiting for someone else are defences against ownership and personal power. A subtle denial of ownership is innocence and indifference “it does not matter to me –whatever you want to do is fine” – a lie or a polite way of avoiding the difficult conversation around ownership”

Every conventional gathering begins with the unspoken belief that whoever called the meeting has something in mind for us. We are inundated with the world trying to sell us something. So much so we cannot imagine that this time will be different. This is why so much talk is about others not in the room.

2-Examples of Early questions (small group discussion, remind not give advice or be helpful)

-    How valuable an experience (project, community) do you plan for this to be?
-    How much risk are you willing to take?
-    How participative do you plan to be?
-    To what extent are you invested in the well-being of the whole?

The Guilt Question- late stage when people feel connected

-    What have I done to contribute to the very thing I complain about or want to change?

Stories…

By naming the stories we hold, we can take the limiting power out of it, allow it to stay in the past and creates an opening to move foreword.

Part III of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts

Conversation of Paradigm Shift VI - Gifts

Part VI of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts

Brining the gifts of those on the margin into the center is primary task of leadership and citizenship.

It boils down to our willingness to stop telling people about:
a.    What they need to improve
b.    What didn’t go well
c.    How they should do it differently next time.

Instead, confront them with their gifts: Talk to others about:

1. 1-    the gift you have received from another in this room (tell the person in specific terms)
2. 2-    the unique strength you see in them
3. 3-    the capacities they have that bring something unique and needed in the world
4. 4-    what they did in the last ten minutes that made a difference.
5. 5-    What has someone in your small group done today that has touched you or moved your or been of value to you?

Further questions for oneself:
1-    what is the gift you currently hold in exile?
2-    What is it about you that nobody knows about?
3-    What are you grateful for that has gone unspoken?
4-    What is the positive feedback you receive that still surprises you?
5-    What is the gift you have that you do not fully acknowledge?

Conversation of Paradigm Shift IV - Dissent

Key role of leadership is get interested in people’s dissent, doubts and find out why this matters so much to them. Dissent becomes commitment and accountability when we get interested in it without having to fix, explain, or answer it.

Why?

The power in the expression of doubts is that it gives us choice about them. Once expressed, they no longer control us; we control them. Saying “no” is symbolic of people finding their space and role in the future- it is the refusal to live the life someone else has in mind for us – the time we declare “I am not that person”

Examples:

a.    What doubts and reservations do you have?
b.    What is the no, or refusal, that you keep postponing?
c.    What have you said yes to, that you no longer really mean?
d.    What is the commitment or decision that you have changed your mind about?
e.    What forgiveness are you withholding?
f.    What resentment do you hold that no one knows about?

3-    Inauthentic forms of dissent to be aware of :

• Denial – often agrees with the problem and then trivializes its existence or cot. Our denial of the destruction of the environment is a good example. Denial in this case takes the form of wanting more data or holding the belief that technology is god that can surmount any obstacle.  Denial is a defining feature of addiction. In creating the communities we live in , we are addicted to urban centres and rural towns that don’t work for all, to a world of large class differences, to a place where we consider people on the margin to not to be our brothers and sisters. We are addicted to accepting the illusion of safety that we get from allowing large systems to name the game and define the conversation.  (Do not ask people whether they think there is a problem or to define the problem)

• Rebellion – reactive claim to old form of power. i.e. protest. ((Stop trying to sell or control he world. If happened. Recognize it, not argue)

• Resignation – passive form of control.

Part IV  of the elements of Conversations of Paradigm Shifts
1-    Invitation
2-    Possibility
3-    Ownership
4-    Dissent
5-    Commitment
6-    Gifts

Conversation of Paradigm Shift O - Setting up

Conversations which create a community of accountability and belonging:
1-    Intimate and authentic relatedness is experienced
2-   World is shifted through invitation rather than mandate
3-   The focus is on the communal possibility
4-    There is a shift in ownership of this place,
5-.    Diversity of thinking and dissent are given space
6-    Commitments are made without barter
7-    The gifts of each person and our community are acknowledged and valued.

Setting up such conversations (to hold specific context for people to go out of the old habit of relating to each other:

1- name the distinctions
2- giver permission for unpopular answers
3- avoid advice and replace it with curiosity
4- Setting up the physical space

1-    Name Distinction

How valuable an experienced do you PLAN to have in this event? (not “want” or “expect” because the power is in deciding, in owning up to the process of creating the experience, to reclaim one’s place as creator and participate in community”

Every community building question is about creating a powerful distinction and every distinction needs to be named. In every conversation and accountability for the well-being of the whole. In the case of ownership, the distinction is between planning and wanting/predicting. If we are not aware, we shouldn’t use the question.

2-    Giver permission for unpopular answers
Let people now that the answer that they planned for this experience to be poor one is a fine answer by saying:

“if you plan for this meeting to be a waste of time, give it a 1 on a 7 point scale, where 1 is yuck and 7 is wow. It is more important to declare where you are at this moment than for you to demonstrate optimism” All we care is people owe the experience and not that the experience be a good one.

3-    Advice replaced by curiosity

One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual’s choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into that conforms with the prescriber’s consciousness.

—Paolo Freire, the Pedagogy of the oppressed

Examples:

Breaking people into groups of three, say that

“Don’t be helpful to each other, don’t decide anything, and don’t give advice.”

“Are you trying to be helpful to that person?” When they say, “Yes, I am,” he says, “I know you are. I appreciate that. Now you’re not following my instructions, and I’m in charge here. Stop being helpful and just get interested.”

If you wish to advice – stop – and Just ask why is that important to you, and ask it again, why is that important to you.

4- Setting up physical space:

4.1-    Connection before content
in 1, then group of 3 then 6 consider the question

a.    what led you to accept the invitation
b.    what would it take for you to be fully present in this room?
c.    What is the price others paid for you to be here?
d.    If you could invite someone you respect to sit beside you and support you in making this meeting successful, who would it be?

4.2-    Acknowledging people coming and leaving, for people leaving:

a.    Ask from beginning for people to give notice of leaving, and to leave in public
b.    Announce leaving to the group, and have three people from the group say:

i.    “Here is what you’ve given us”
ii.    Ask soon-to-be-departed: What are you taking with you? What shifted fro you, became clearer? What value have you received as a result of being here IS there anything else you like to say to the community?”

iii.    Thanks them for coming, remove empty chairs.

Yes, it all take time, but we are choosing depth over speed, treating people today is how we get treated tomorrow.

4. 3-    Food – bring local, healthy food