Self-Organization as a Form of Governance of Common-Pool Resources

I originally wrote this article for university a view years ago. I first published it at https://derknoten.wien in 2020.

Abstract

At the core of climate change is the problem of regulating the access to common-pool resources. Self-organization has been proposed as a mode of regulating the access to these resources. This paper examines existing literature on the conditions under which this self-organization can occur and how they relate to climate change.

1 Motivation

I have been interested in alternative governance for a while, especially in decentralization and self-organization. In my search for effective alternatives to the frustratingly slow and ineffective governance models that we as a global society have been employing, I came across self-organization as a concept of systems theory a while ago. Since it is my ambition, to contribute to a shift in perception of options for human behavior in the face of existential crisis, I want to try and explain some concepts and ideas relating to the governance of climate-change and other global scale governance challenges.

2 Introduction and Definitions

To understand problems related to climate change and the governance of global commons in general, the research around the tragedy of the commons and common-pool resources is helpful. This paper aims at providing an overview over the topic of common-pool resources, a (non-comprehensive) summary of the research on self-organization of common-pool resources and some more climate specific implications and thoughts.

2.1 Common-Pool Resources

Common-pool resources are characterized by two properties: access to the resource and the nature of the flow of benefits. If it is difficult or costly to exclude potential users from a resource and if the use of the resource by one user, subtracts from the availability to other users, i.e. if it has a finite flow of benefits, a given resource is called a common pool resource (Ostrom et al. 1994). A classic example would be fish in the ocean. It is virtually impossible to exclude anyone from fishing in the ocean. Anyone that does so, decreases the stock of fish that is available to others, i.e. the resource “yield[s] a finite flow of benefits” (Ostrom 2008). The concept can be applied to other resources in the same simple way, e.g. forests and the wood that grows in them, or rivers and the water that flows in them. But it can also be applied to climate change, or more precisely the atmosphere, as will be discussed under 2.3. A common-pool resource consists of a resource system, that holds a stock of a given resource, e.g. the amount of fish in the ocean. A flow of resource units out of the system occurs through appropriation of those units by the users (Ostrom 2015, 30). Common-pool resources are different from public goods in the nature of the flow of benefits. Public goods do not have a finite flow of resources, for example good air quality doesn’t become less, just because more people benefit from it.

2.2 Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons was first described by Hardin (1968). His original example to illustrate the problem was that of a pasture on which many herders let their cattle graze. The pasture in this example is the common-pool resource. The tragedy begins, when one of the herders notices that they can easily put more cattle on the pasture and in doing so increase their yielded benefit. The other herders soon start doing the same, so after some time the whole pasture is depleted and none of the herders can yield any benefit from it anymore. The underlying assumption to this behavioral model is that the users of a resource behave like rational agents. A rational agent seeks maximum individual benefit and considers all available options logically only with regards to this intention. Any agent experiences the full benefit of adding cattle to their herd, but the negative effects of overgrazing are shared between all agents. Because the subjective benefit of selfish behavior outweighs the cost, there is an incentive for selfish and unsustainable behavior. Another condition for the unfolding of a tragedy of the commons is a large group of users, where no one has rights to the resource, more than anyone else (Ostrom 2008). This will become very relevant in later sections, when we look at how this all relates to climate change. Originally it was thought that a common-pool resource would always end up as a tragedy of the commons if one of two possible mechanisms of governance were not applied. The first is privatization of the resource and allocation of resource units through a market economy. This method only works though, if exclusion costs are low, otherwise unauthorized users can’t be prevented from using the resource despite it being private property (Paavola 2011). The other is a centralized instance of control, that allocates access to the resource. This institution also needs to ensure the public obeys the imposed regulations, such as a state or national government agency. More recent research of the topic suggests that there is a third option: self-organization among stakeholders to produce a governance system for a given resource, without a central institution like a state stepping in and providing regulation (Ostrom 2008).

2.3 Climate Change as a Tragedy of the Commons

The pollution of the atmosphere and the resulting climate change are not a problem of extraction, like the examples above, but rather a problem of accumulation (of course it is also related to the extraction of fossil fuels, but we will focus on the accumulation side of things for now). In this case the resource users do not calculate the benefit of extracting more than they should and compare it to the long-term cost. Rather they calculate the cost of internalizing their waste management and compare it to the long-term cost of externalization. Since the long-term cost is shared among all users it is lower than the cost of internalization (Hardin 1968). The cost of polluting the atmosphere is not paid by any individual but is shared by the global society. Because of this, it is cheaper for any individual or organization to emit greenhouse gases, rather than take care of their “waste” or use other methods that produce less emissions. A more formalized way of defining the atmosphere as a common-pool resource is provided by Paavola (2011), in viewing atmospheric green-house-gas (GHG) sinks as “stock resources which provide a flow of sink services”. Related to this perspective, the greenhouse gas budget, that humanity can spend and still reach a certain global warming target, can also be considered as a common-pool resource.

2.4 Self-Organization

In systems theory self-organization is understood as “the spontaneous emergence of a large system via the collective innovations of several simple and smaller systems” (Chermack 2004). It is a property of mechanistic systems, for example a dust cloud collapsing into a solar system (Collier 2004) or a chain of amino acids folding in to a protein. Self-organization occurs on all hierarchical levels of the universe: atoms forming molecules, just by virtue of being close to each other; the cells of any living organism producing its own components, that self-organize to renew the cell structure; eco systems, that self-organize to find a stable balance of primary producers, herbivores and predators; social systems that self-organize to govern community live on all scales, or to raise awareness of crucial issues, e.g. the Fridays for Future movement. The most important characteristic of self-organization is, that it spontaneously emerges in a decentralized fashion. Meadows (1999) described self-organization as “basically the combination of an evolutionary raw material — a highly variable stock of information from which to select possible patterns — and a means for experimentation, for selecting and testing new patterns”. She also ranked the power to self-organize as a highly effective way of changing a system in the same paper on leverage points. In the case of governance of common-pool resources the “evolutionary raw material” (Meadows 1999) would be recorded history with the wide variety of governance models on all different levels that are known to human kind. Experimentation is necessary to find new ways of governance that achieve a more sustainable use of common-pool resources.

2.5 Research Question

After laying out these basic definitions and relations, naturally emerges: What are the conditions, that must be met, so that users of a common-pool resource, can self-organize to form a governance system, especially with regards to climate change?

3 Conditions for Self-Organization and Limitations

3.1 Comparison of Climate Change and other Tragedies of the Commons

Climate change is different to other tragedies of the commons, not in the mechanics of how it came to be a tragedy, but rather with regards to the scale at which it occurs. Climate change is a problem of pollution of the atmosphere. The atmosphere spans the whole world and every single human being on this planet is a user of the atmosphere and therefore of the common-pool resource at the heart of climate change. This means the highest possible number of users and the highest diversity in interests of these users are involved. As we will see later, this is one of the most crucial challenges with regards to self-organization.

3.2 Conditions for Self-Organization

According to Collier (2004) the conditions for the self-organization of a system are cohesion, i.e. some form of interaction and an input of energy, proportionate to the entropy of the system. If those requirements are met a system self-organizes, to minimize entropy production and “take the path of least resistance” (Collier 2004). Even though these generalizations are derived from a rather mechanistic systems approach, they provide a kind of abstract metaphor for the conditions for self-organization around a common-pool resource described by Ostrom (2008). Ostrom provides the capacity for individuals to communicate as the most basic requirement. This is equivalent to cohesion between a system’s elements in mechanistic systems. Furthermore, Ostrom reports, that a low discount rate of a given common-pool resource plays a crucial role. The discount rate describes the preference of a received benefit now over a benefit that is received later in time by the users of a common-pool resource. A low discount rate means that benefit flows in regularly at a lower rate, whereas a high discount rate would mean, that benefits that are received sooner are valued higher. In practice a low discount rate means, that most resource users rely on being able to use a resource for a long time and have an interest in preserving it. Another important condition is mostly homogenous interest and capacity to pursue their interest among all users of a resource (Ostrom 2008). As a last factor Ostrom (2008) provides the cost of agreement and enforcement, that both need to be low, in order for self-organization to occur. According to Ostrom, once these conditions are fulfilled, resource users are willing to invest a lot of time and energy in to building institutions for the governance of their respective resource (Ostrom 2008) and give up short term benefit for the sake of long term sustainability. For this to work Paavola (2011) provides another condition, that is, all users must feel like their efforts in preserving the resource are not lost, but they can actually achieve something. According to Ostrom (2008) the first step in building a governance system needs to be the establishment of so called “boundary rules”. These rules determine where the resource system begins and ends; who is entitled to how big of a share of the flow of benefits; the territory that a governance unit is responsible for and what duties users have (Ostrom 2008).

3.3 Climate Change Specific Conditions for Self-Organization

When the conditions listed under 3.2 are applied to a global context, the real magnitude of climate change as a challenge becomes apparent. As mentioned under 3.1 all humans are users of the atmosphere and therefore conditions for self-organization must apply globally. The first condition of uncostly communication among all users seems to be fulfilled in times of the internet, but it might not be that simple. Communication between those being responsible for the biggest contributions to emissions and those most affected by it is close to non-existent. Also, we have not yet found a tool to manage the discourse of nearly 8 billion people. Furthermore, humanity is a very diverse group with very heterogenous interest. Small-holder farmers in rural areas of developing countries and organizations that mine oil and sell it for use as an energy source are examples for two ends of the spectrum of interests. Discount rates seem to be low in some parts of the global population, most likely among those who are already experiencing negative impacts of climate change, but also among climate activists and environmentalists in developed countries. On the other hand, many individuals and organizations, still seem to prefer a high flow of benefits right now over a more moderate but consistent flow overtime. Finally, the cost of global agreement is very high. The best tool now to reach something close to a global agreement on climate change are the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences of the parties (COP) were delegates from all countries negotiate global public climate legislation each year. The agreements reached at these summits must be agreed upon unanimously, which makes it very difficult for ambitious players like small island developing states who are most adversely affected by climate change, to push for bold global climate legislation. The cost of the “smallest common denominator” agreements, that are the results of COPs, is very high in the sense that it is a slow and inefficient process and the results lack ambition. It is even questionable if the achieved agreements can be viewed as global agreements at all, since only governments of countries can play an active role in them. To get around these challenges with global collective action Paavola (2011) proposes to focus efforts on local collective action. He argues that the incentive to free-ride is lower on a smaller scale, since the positive impacts of each individuals action are felt more directly and that interests are more likely to be more homogenous in smaller-scale groups. I would like to add to the list of advantages of small scale collective action, the lower cost of communication, agreement and enforcement. Paavola (2011) suggests that small scale collective action groups could coordinate among each other, through a sort of multi-leveled system of agreement, where representatives of all groups agree to ensure global alignment of local collective action. He admits that nation states coordinating within the UNFCCC constitute one manifestation of such a leveled governance system, but notes that there might be other organizational structures, that are more apt to the challenge at hand. He goes on to argue that the cost of transactions is a determining factor for the shape that any governance system takes and that this cost is largely determined by the specific aspect that an institution aspires to govern. Since global interests are diverse and different aspects of governance best operate at different costs of transactions, Paavola (2011) argues that “multiple non-comprehensive solutions are a more likely outcome to emerge than one, all-encompassing governance solution […]”.

4 Conclusion

To summarize, doubts about the aptness of current governance methods are rooted in a big body of research, of which we have barely scratched the surface in this paper. It seems as though self-organization might be a more powerful mode of governing common-pool resources, but the conditions for it to occur are not met on a global scale. Since it is unlikely that the conditions will be met on a global scale, but are more easily fulfilled on a smaller scale, local self-organization is likely going to be a major component in governing common-pool resources to avoid catastrophic climate change. But since global coordination is still necessary a multi-level decentral governance system is likely to emerge. The concept of self-organization as an approach to governance of common pool resources seems to offer some valuable insights into the diversity of governance models available. This alone is a valuable insight: to realize that nation states, bargaining at international conferences are not the only thinkable way in which global and local governance can play out.

5 References

Chermack, Thomas. 2004. “The Role of System Theory in Scenario Planning.” Journal of Futures Studies (8): 15–30.

Collier, John. 2004. “Self-organization, Individuation and Identity.” Revue internationale de philosophie n° 228 (2): 151–72. https://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=RIP_228_0151&download=1. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science (162): 1243–48.

Meadows, Donella. 1999. “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System.” The Sustainability Institute.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2008. “Tragedy of the Commons.” In the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd Edition).

— — — . 2015. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Canto Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=1077401.

Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, James Walker, James M. Walker, and Jimmy Walker. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources: University of Michigan Press.

Paavola, Jouni. 2011. “Climate Change: The Ultimate ‘Tragedy of the Commons’.” Property in land and other resources, 417–34.

Learnings from hosting a visioning workshop at the climate camp in Vienna

2 weeks ago I hosted a workshop at the climate camp in Vienna. The title was “The Private is Political — Developing Visions for a Livable Future”. It was basically a space for participants to explore what is really important to them personally and how that connects to their political positions and motivations. In this quick post I want to share what I learned.

Needs precede political positions

Underneath every political analysis there is some personal need. It might be under a couple layers of rationalizing and “logic thinking”, but I’m pretty convinced that there is some deeply personal and (this is the important part) legitimate need behind all of it. Some things that came up in the workshop where: to be seen as a human the way that I am. To live in a healthy environment with intact ecosystems. To be connected with others and live in community. To have agency.

Discovering needs creates agency

For me discovering these needs behind political positions is great because it creates agency. I can now think about how I want to go about satisfying the needs I discovered, rather than feeling stuck on how to change a whole system so it works according to my political views. Much easier, much more tangible, much more satisfying. And also much more productive: By living your life in accordance with what you need (what you actually need, not what society tells you you should want), you have now successfully done your part in moving the whole system closer in a direction where everyone’s needs are met.

Tending to own needs is generative beyond self

The effects go beyond personal benefit. There is something extremely generative about tending to ones own needs. When someone does it, they are naturally more supportive of others doing the same, they are in a better position to hold space for those around them, because they are more resourced and there is something inspiring about people that take their needs seriously.

Clarity on needs opens up possibility

There are some boundaries to this “individual agency” approach though. There are a lot of circumstances and systems that stand in the way of us fulfilling our need in the way that we need to. (Please forgive me for the over-extensive use of the word need). For example the desire to live in an intact ecosystem is being made more and more impossible by extractive practices that lead to biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems. This where the personal need turns into a political position on the societal stage. One might choose to act out that desire by becoming a climate activist, or by working toward living off a plot of land and regenerating it. There are so many ways to satisfy a need when we are clear on what it is. Political positions for the sake of having one, because that is what you do, are more of an intellectual exercise and are restrictive more often than not.

There are very personal reasons for doing the stuff we do “out there in society”. Owning those reasons empowers us to make choices on how to act on them with a lot more clarity and be more effective in bringing about positive change and living a meaningful and fulfilled live at the same time.

And when we can find the right people to walk this walk with, a need for connection and community might automatically be satisfied in the process.

No “right” theory of change

Another thing I (re-)learned was, that everyone has their theories about how we should best go about making positive change happen: through education, tackling economic inequality, raising awareness to reach a critical mass of people around a topic, applying pressure on institutions, solving problems through self-organized direct action, slowly titrating (the process of slowly dripping an alkaline solution into an acid to neutralize it or vice versa) different ways of doing stuff into society to not scare anyone off. I can vividly remember a lot of these proto-theories of change being “the shit” for me at some point. I would get super excited that I found “the solution” and try to convince everyone around me that this was “the way”, then get a bit frustrated because I realized this approach also had limitations, coming across another “the shit” — rinse and repeat. The very loud and clear lesson from the workshop yesterday was: all of them are important. Don’t waste any energy on trying to convince people of your approach to change. Just go do it for a while, see what you can learn and how your perspective on change changes through following one path for a while. It can always change according to what you see, but it is never “lost time” or “heading in the wrong direction” — as long as you don’t do any intentional or reckless harm to others and are willing to own your mistakes of course.

If you found this interesting but are wondering what the hell to do with it or where and how to start getting clear on your needs — please reach out to me, I’d love to have a conversation with you!

Key Learning’s from the Microsolidarity Gathering

Last week I had the absolute privilege and pleasure to attend a gathering of changemakers, community-builders, coaches, space-holders and generally awesome people in Belgium. The experience was made possible by everyone who was there and was organized by Richard D. Bartlett and Nati Lombardo (thehum.org). In this article I want to share my key takeaways and learnings from a week of learning about microsolidarity, community, belonging, hosting and myself. I won’t go into any detail about what microsolidarity is, Rich has a series of essays over here where he introduces the concept.

This is a collection of some pieces of insight, remixed from the inputs of Rich, Nati and Karl, the interactions with other’s there, open space sessions and what came to me in quite time. A lot of it is not my own thinking but what I got from others. I try to give credit whereever possible, let me know if I got something wrong or you find your own brilliant thoughts in here and I haven’t given you credit! There is no particular order to the paragraphs, a lot of them overlap or describe a similiar thing from a different angle, but this is what I have to say and feels valueable to share at the moment.

If I had to name one single most valuable “corner-stone” learning it would be this:

To build communities and ultimately a society where everyone’s needs are met, everyone needs to be able to express their needs, to hear those of others, be committed to look for the overlap and celebrate the differences with creativity.

Self-Connection is a Skill

This means you can get better at it with practice and the right tools. It also means it is not trivial to be connected to ones own needs. The default behavior from dominant culture is to suppress some “undesirable”, “unacceptable” or “insufficient” parts of ourselves. Dominant behavior in the outer is a reflection of dominant behavior toward oneself. I can not treat you with compassion and have empathy for your needs if I am not able to do so for myself. Therefore practicing self-connection is a hugely important contribution toward around us.

Social Fabric and Meaningful Connections

Social fabric is the magic substance that is created when we drop the bullshit, stop pretending and are real with each other. It is what emerges from a bunch of meaningful connections. Meaningful connections happen when we support each other in getting out needs met. This requires being able to express our needs and hear those of others. Meaningful connections can happen in an instant under the right conditions. Social fabric requires repetition, care for the connections and a sufficient density of connections. You know that social fabric is strong when it can hold conflict and disagreement.

Conditions for Meaningful Connections

At the gathering it was remarkably easy to drop into meaningful connections with people I had just met. This was because Rich and Nati and the rest of the hosting team had put a lot of thought and experience into creating the right conditions. They had created a lightweight but very thought-out set of boundaries and structure that helped everyone to relax and become present quickly. One quote that really made the ides of rules, boundaries and structure in community click for me was this:

The function of the boat is where the boat is not. 
– Lucas Tauil

This means: the function of a boat is not to be a hull and a mast and a rudder. It is to displace water and float so that on the inside there is space for people to live and stuff to happen. Similarly the function of setting up boundaries around a community is not to have boundaries, but to enable everyone on the inside to engage in meaningful interactions and be present, because they can feel safe and know what to expect. The idea of a minimum viable structure really stuck with me: what is the absolute least amount of structure that we need in order for everyone to be able to express their needs, conflicts to be resolved gracefully and transformatively and the community to fulfill it’s purpose?

Belonging

Belonging is the feeling of being in the right place with the right people. Having what is needed by others and being able to provide it freely and happily. Being able to express what you need and having your needs met by those around you. Giving and receiving without worrying about the plumbing (as Jhonson Hsieh brilliantly put it). Breathing as one, being held crying in joy or anguish, holding what needs holding, just because we know there is something more real and important underneath what we can see on the surface. Something deeply authentic and special that each of us has to offer and that wants to come out and be expressed, wants to grow and thrive. Belonging is where it can, where we support each other so it is able to. 
Belonging.
The place where you are longing to be. 
Having an idea and realizing that just the right people are here and there is just enough time to make it happen in that moment. And then making it happen. 
Not having to hold back any authentic part of yourself and seeing no need to do anything but show up authentically.

Expressing Needs

I have written a lot about expressing needs and getting them met in a community so far. But I want to riff on this again for a second by telling a story from my way back to Vienna after the gathering. I had to change trains in Aachen and had an hour to get dinner. I walked out of the train station, past a person sitting on the floor begging, barely noticing them, crossed the street and entered a Kebab place. As I entered I realized there was a very tense atmosphere, a woman at the counter and the two men behind it were having some kind of disconnect. Suddenly the woman grabbed a kebab sandwich on the counter that had apparently been prepared for her and left the store. The two men behind the counter were startled, one walked after her half heartedly, complaining that she hadn’t paid. When I sat down to eat he complained to me: “I get it, she’s hungry and doesn’t have money. But why does she treat us like this, not being honest? If she had told us: ‘I’m hungry but don’t have any money’ it would have been no problem, she could have eaten anyway. But ordering as usual and then running away with the food… what is this?”. I agreed that it was not a great way for her to get her need met and at the same time felt compassion for her situation. She was probably ashamed top directly ask or afraid that her request would not be granted (side note: this is probably because there was no social fabric between them, they were strangers to each other).

After I finished eating I still had some time to pass so I got a drink and sat down on the plaza in front of the train station. As I watched the diverse crowd that was hanging out there, the begging person that I had walked past without really noticing them, came up to me and very kindly said: “Do you maybe have 20 cents? I haven’t eaten yet and I am really hungry. I’ve been sitting in front of the train station for 2 hours but no one would give me any money”. The way that they looked at me and revealed their need to me, making a completely reasonable request, allowed me to look with in myself: do I right now have the capacity to support this person in having their needs met? I did and gave them two euros. They thanked me very kindly, I wished them well and wandered of to another group of people, where they made the same request and also got some money. I felt good after this interaction. I was able to support someone whilst keeping the integrity of my own needs.

A couple minutes later it was time to get on the next train. After we had left the station, a woman came in and sat down opposite of me. She looked vaguely familiar out of the corner of my eye so I looked closer: it was the woman that had run off with her free kebab. She seemed to recognize me too and looked away shamefully. I thought about how I could let her know that there would have been another way to get what she wanted, that would have left both the kebab people and herself feel good and cared for, instead of taken advantage of and shameful. Before I could say anything though she got up and found another seat across the aisle.

The difference in the way that these two people went about getting the exact same need met, struck me as a very coachable moment. The begging person was for one reason or another able to express what they needed truthfully and authentically, got what they needed and we both left the interaction feeling (or at least seeming to feel) great. This is a way of living in partnership. The woman in the kebab shop chose to be sneaky. She also got what she wanted but everyone involved left the interaction feeling shitty. This is a way of interacting in a domination paradigm (“I (the kebab lady) won’t get what I want from the ones higher up the hierarchy (kebab place guys) so I need to trick them into giving it to me and dominate them in return”).

Collective Agency requires Social Fabric

This means we can not collaborate to solve the problems of our time unless there is some social fabric between us. The stronger and more resilient the fabric is, the easier and more fun it is to work on really hard problems like: How do transition out of fossil energy in our community? How can we increase our food sovereignty? How do we make sure everyone has access to affordable housing? 
 → i.e. the material conditions of society that will have to change pretty soon if we want to hang around this planet for much longer. 
Since there is a lot of resistance to change and inertia in the system, these challenges are hard to solve.

• There will be conflict and disconnect at times in any group going about tackling them.
• We will need support to find our place in the struggle.
• We will need to grow to have the skills to make any meaningful impact.
• We need a sense of belonging to stay happy and healthy through these physically, mentally and emotionally challenging processes.

Social fabric is what provides this on different scales (read on).

Literacy of Scales

Microsolidarity is fractal. It assumes the same principles can support us on different scales of community, from the self, through dyad, crew and congregation all the way to the broad network. Rich kept mentioning through out the retreat, that the one thing that he wants people to walk away with, is literacy of scales, i.e knowing what scale of community is good at doing what. Right until the end of the week I kept thinking: “when are we going to get to that part?” It was only on the way home that I realized that this is the kind of thing that you learn through lived experience more so than through a lecture. I’ll offer some very short takeaways anyway:

• Conflict between 3 people does not need to be restored in a circle of 36. It is just very uncomfortable for the 33 people who are not involved.
• Dyads (two people) are great great great for getting support with deep inner work and an awesome space for creative co-creation of a workshop outline.
• Small groups (3–7 people) are amazing for sharing knowledge, giving each other feedback, aligning perspectives on a thing that happened, creative conversation, supporting each other through light disconnect.
• big groups (10 upwards) are great for games, dance, mixing and matching of needs and resources, cuddle puddles (although these might work at smaller scales too 😉

Meetings are important

“Meetings are the primary ritual of collective agency”
-Jen Sandler

While social fabric is a necessary pre-condition for making stuff happen, meetings are how we do that. Being good at meetings is very important if we want to make the world a better place. This sounds obvious but this spin on just how important meetings are really sparked something in me. Thanks Jen for the amazing open space session!

Compassion is key!

To weave social fabric and cultivate a sense of belonging practicing compassion for the parts of us as well as other people that have “divergent needs” is crucial. Compassion it was turns seemingly incompatible opposites that seem like a dead end road into a garden of opportunity in which we can creatively explore next steps that serve everyone involved.

Precise appreciation is powerful

Nothing is more effective to deepen meaningful connections and create a sense of belonging than precise appreciation. I learned this from Karl Steyaert (who did a big part of the input on inner work, self connection and conflict resolution and you should definitely check out if you are not familiar with him). Precise appreciation works like this:

• Someone did something you appreciated.
• What need did you have and how did they meet that need so that you appreciate them for what they have done?
• Tell them in as concrete terms as possible, they will feel seen in their brilliance and greatness.

So much more…

It feels like I could keep going for ever but this is a post on my “key learning’s” not all my learning’s 😉

Special thanks to Rich, Nati, Karl, Jocelyn and Lana who where the hosting team and created a safe container for a one of a kind experience that I will never forget! An equally huge thanks to everyone else who was there and contributed to my learning (you all did ;).

Let me know what resonated, what you see different, any thoughts that this sparked in the comments, via email on twitter or instagram 🙂