fbpx

Category: Blog

  • Walking the talk is not always easy.

    At the end of last year I was stretched pretty thin with many different projects: At Civil Action Network we’ve been growing our circle of collaborators, strategizing, fundraising, revamping our website and ideating intensely over the last year. Simultaneously I’ve been getting more and more involved in the microsolidarity network, hosting a summer camp, running online practice programs, designing new course content and contributing to developing the long term vision for the network. In between all of this the core of my work is working with people: coaching changemakers and leaders through challenging decisions and supporting them to align their actions more with their values, facilitating group processes and leading trainings on skills for regenerative transformation.

    With all of these projects and strands of work my deepest desire is to contribute to a radical shift in culture: away from a domination paradigm, toward a partnership paradigm; away from extraction, toward regeneration; away from urgency, toward spaciousness; away from “we should”, toward “this is us”. It is very clear for me that at this stage of my life, with everything that’s going on in the world, this is what I’m called to. 

    At the end of last year I had to admit to myself, that the way I was showing up to this calling was out of integrity with what it is that I was trying to do: I was constantly chasing my todo list, never quite letting go of my mental image of what needed to happen next. I was juggling with too many things at once and in the process lost enthusiasm for what I was doing. I was always tired, dragged myself through long days and frankly didn’t enjoy what I was doing (except for coaching and hosting events, somehow my work with people always brings me back). When I realized that I was burning myself out in the name of regeneration, partnership and justice (the thing that I supposedly help people to avoid) in November, I decided to take a month off over christmas and new years. This was one of the better decisions I’ve taken recently. 

    My time off was not very introspective. I didn’t go deep in to reflection mode about the last year nor did I set many intentions for the next. Instead I enjoyed spending time with my family, catching up with old friends and going on an epic 7 day mountain adventure with some of my favorite people. I spent a whole week at home in Vienna with out any plans, just connecting with my room mates and doing whatever I felt like. Finally I travelled to the south of spain to join some friends who are prototyping a future retreat center with a 3 month experiment. Spending time like this was the best thing I could have done. What I needed to do was to reconnect with my enthusiam, find my spark for the things that I’m doing again. I needed to not worry about what was going on in the rest of the world, not try to figure out a plan for the next year, but just be and enjoy and land on my feet again. 

    The big takeaway from all of this: it works! If you have to much going on, taking a break actually makes a difference. It does so in a slow, gradual way though. There is no big bang and all of a sudden inspiration hits. The body jut slowly regulates itself down, relaxes in to being rather than doing. It took me about two weeks of the four to start feeling more calm again. Then I started to notice how my mind was producing more interesting thoughts, how I had more bandwidth to pay attention to the signals my body was sending. On our mountain adventure I started getting really inspired around some of the topics I had been working with last year.  And finally I couldn’t wait to get back to work and start putting in to practice some of the ideas that had surfaced. 

    Now it’s been 3 weeks since I started working again and I notice a fundamental difference: I don’t want to work as much anymore. Having reconnected with the beauty of life, the joy that I can experience when I’m doing the things I most love to do for their own sake, not for some higher purpose, I notice myself not having quite such an appetite for producing output, making change. And I actually think that’s a good thing. It enables me to engage the work that I do with integrity and in connection with myself, my body and the world around me. I feel like I’ve unlocked another level of “being the change” I want to see in the world and have taken another step in my development away from “grind culture”.

    The moral of the story: you can overextend yourself even in the name of regeneration. And you can choose to stop doing so. Your body will recover if you let it. Enthusiasm, creativity and motivation will return. It’s okay to stumble, as long as you course correct when you notice.

    If you’re experiencing similar challenges and want to get support, let me know, I’d be happy to chat!

  • Regenerative Praxis oder wie ich mich um mich selbst kümmere

    Stress ist ungesund. Das ist nichts Neues. Sich gut um sich selbst zu kümmern sollte, wie ich finde, jedoch nicht nur eine abstrakte Tugend sein. Die kommt ja oft eh aus einer ideologisch etwas fragwürdigen Ecke: du hast dich gut um dich zu kümmern, dass du leistungsfähig sein kannst und dein Beitrag zum Bruttosozialprodukt angemessen ist. Viel lieber als eine verkürzte Erfolgsmetrik einer längst überholten Denkweise, will ich folgendes in den Fokus rücken: Selbstfürsorge ist ein Statement. Wie wir mit uns selbst umgehen ist ein Spiegel dessen, wie wir mit anderen umgehen. Oder anders herum. Und ich finde du hast es verdient dich wohl zu fühlen in deiner Haut, Lust zu haben auf das Leben, Raum zu haben für spontane Inspiration, Energiereserven, falls es mal doch nicht so läuft. Wirklich! Außerdem finde ich die Sichtweise “Ruhe als Widerstand” die Tricia Hersey groß gemacht hat auch sympathisch. Die Kurzversion: In einer Gesellschaft, die auf Leistung getrimmt ist, in der Ausbeutung und Zwang die Grundlage bilden, ist es ein revolutionärer Akt zu sagen: nein Danke, ich mach jetzt einen Mittagsschlaf.

    Jetzt wo wir uns einig sind, dass Selbstfürsorge und Regenerative Praxis wirklich wichtig sind (sind wir doch oder?), ist die logische nächste Frage: und wie geht das eigentlich, mich so richtig gut um mich selbst kümmern? Da muss ich dir leider sagen: das musst du am Ende für dich selbst herausfinden, wie genau du das am Besten machst. Ich will hier dennoch teilen, was ich für mich gefunden habe, ein Menü von Praktiken anbieten, die dir vielleicht auch liegen. Probier’ doch mal was aus und schau wie es dir taugt.

    Morgenlicht

    Morgendliches Sonnenlicht in die Augen zu bekommen regt die, sorgt für eine ausgeglichene Hirnchemie gibt Energie und trägt zu einem erholsamen Schlaf bei. Wenn es sonnig ist reichen schon 10 min, wenn es bewölkt ist sind 30 min empfehlenswert. Am besten sobald wie möglich nach dem Aufstehen eine Runde spazieren gehen, das regt auch den Kreislauf an und bringt den Körper in Schwung. Wenn du mehr darüber wissen willst, wie das genau funktioniert erzählt dir Ander Huberman hier alles was dich interessieren könnte.

    Box Breathing

    Diese Atemtechnik hilft auf einer physiologischen Ebene besser mit Stress umgehen zu können und gleichmäßiger zu atmen. Wenn du täglich nur 5 Minuten übst, lernt dein Körper grundsätzlich tiefer und langsamer zu atmen, weil du CO2 besser tolerieren kannst. Tieferes Atmen und vor allem langsames Ausatmen gibt unserem Nervensystem ein Signal zur Entspannung. Die positiven Effekte von Box Breathing sind inzwischen gut erforscht – hier erfährst du alles was du wissen musst.

    Assoziatives Schreiben

    Um nicht endlos lang über Dingen, die mich beschäftigen zu brüten, finde ich assoziatives Schreiben sehr effektiv. Meistens mache ich das in der Früh, nach einem Spaziergang und es ist wirklich simpel: stell dir einen Timer für 10 Minuten, setz dich an deinen Schreibtisch mit Stift und Papier und fang einfach an zu schreiben, was dir in den Sinn kommt. Das Ziel ist für 10 Minuten ununterbrochen zu schreiben und wenn möglich den Stift nicht abzusetzen. Es geht dabei nicht darum akkurat zu beschreiben was passiert ist, eine schöne Geschichte zu erzählen oder nur die Gedanken aufzuschreiben, die dir gefallen. Der Sinn ist, einfach mal alles, so ungefiltert wie möglich rauszulassen. Du musst das hinterher niemandem zeigen, kannst es sogar wenn du magst sofort vernichten. In Phasen, in denen ich diese Praxis konsequent täglich mache bemerke ich, dass es mir leichter fällt starke Reaktionen oder Hirngespinste vorbeiziehen zu lassen, anstatt mich darin zu verfangen und dass ich insgesamt klarer und präsenter bin. Dieser Effekt stellt sich meistens schon nach ein paar Tagen ein.

    Soziale Verbindung

    Wir Menschen sind soziale Wesen. Wenn wir nicht regelmäßig Erfahrungen von tiefer Verbindung machen, tendieren wir zu einem Zustand der Daueranspannung. Es ist erstaunlich wie heilsam es sein kann sich in einem Kontext wiederzufinden, in dem wir das Gefühl haben wirklich wir selbst sein zu können, keine Erwartungen erfüllen zu müssen, unterstützt zu werden und auch etwas zu anderen beitragen zu können. Um solche Momente bewusst herbeizuführen habe ich eine Praxis Namens “Crewing” für mich entdeckt. Dabei treffe ich mich regelmäßig alle zwei Wochen oder einmal im Monat mit 3-4 befreundeten Personen und wir verbringen 90 Minuten damit uns gegenseitig bei Herausforderunen zu unterstützen, denen wir uns gegenüber sehen, gemeinsam zu reflektieren oder zu feiern was gerade richtig gut läuft. Eine Crew ist dabei eine stabile Konstellation, sodas über die Zeit mehr Tiefe möglich wird. Alles was du über Crewing wissen musst um loszulegen und Vorschläge dafür, wie eine Crew Session laufen kann, findest du unter microsolidarity.cc und hier. Frag mich auch gern, wenn du mehr darüber wissen willst – ich unterstütze gern dabei eine Crew ins Leben zu rufen!

    Ich könnte hier jetzt noch über genügend Bewegung, Ernährung, Schlaf und vieles mehr schreiben, doch diese 4 Praktiken waren für mich im vergangenen Jahr mit Abstand am einflussreichsten. Wenn ich mehr finde, werde ich es hier in der Zukunft noch hinzufügen. Und was funktioniert für dich gut? Lass es mich gern in einem Kommentar oder per email an hello@jonasgroener.com wissen 🙂

  • On Power and Collaborative Leadership

    TLDR (by ChatGPT):


    The author reflects on their experience co-hosting a microsolidarity summer camp and the challenges they faced in shared leadership. They encountered a fearful and power-seeking aspect of themselves when the group dynamics shifted, leading to feelings of discomfort and uncertainty about their role in the community. The article emphasizes the importance of letting go of familiar roles, facing uncertainty with self-responsibility, and embracing the opportunity for personal growth and new, meaningful roles within the evolving community.

    Long form:

    While co-hosting the microsolidarity summer camp this past week, I had a profound and humbling experience: I came up against a fearful and power seeking part of me, that I hadn’t met before. Scary as it was it turned out to be one of the most meaningful things to happen to me in a long time. Here is the story:

    Jocelyn and I had been working together to set up a minimum viable structure for the camp, meaning the least amount of structure needed to enable everyone to exercise their agency and co-shape the experience according to their needs, values, skills and gifts. Practically this means we held an opening circle introducing some principles (make it your own, partnership + mutual support, be curious about others, if you feel good: take a risk and try something new) and introduced Open Space Technology as the primary means of organizing our shared time at the camp. Throughout the whole week we facilitated a morning circle at 11:30 each day, consisting of a check-in, space for any logistical announcements from the team and participants, and populating the open space board with offerings for the day. Holding this role of facilitator made me feel good: I knew what my role was, how I could contribute to the larger whole and I was respected for it. This role contributed to a sense of belonging and safety that enabled me to walk up to people that I was curious about and just strike up a conversation, but I also felt a sense of responsibility for the well-being of our temporary community.

    We knew that by Friday our number would grow by roughly 50% from 38 to 56 people. To take the load off the hosting team and to share the opportunity for practicing hosting with other participants, Rich and Jocelyn briefed a group of willing folks on how to welcome people – microsolidarity style. This deserves a whole article in itself, which might or might not follow soon. Anyhow, they did a great job at briefing and our friends did a great job at welcoming. So good that on Friday I didn’t even notice how many people had trickled in throughout the day. When the first batch of participants had arrived on Tuesday I was busy for most of the day showing people around, getting them settled in and orienting them in what would happen next. On Friday on the other hand I spent most of my time napping, chatting with people or hosting an Open Space session. In itself this is a huge success: we set out to decentralize our power and responsibility and it worked!

    However as the day went on and in the evening everyone had gotten there, I noticed that I somehow felt really off balance. It took me a while to figure out what was up. I first noticed being annoyed at the new people for being there. Then I noticed feeling frustrated about our minimal plan for the opening circle, because part of me wanted to take more space and feel more important. I noticed all these things and didn’t quite trust myself to follow these impulses, so I held back and followed the lead of my co-facilitator, who that day was on top of her game and I knew her intuitions would be spot on (which also annoyed part of me, because I wanted to be the one to bring those brilliant ideas…). After holding a powerful and snappy welcome circle for the newcomers we sat down with the hosting team for a check-in. When my turn came I finally was able to put in to words what had been bugging me for hours: Part of me was afraid of losing my standing in the community. Up until now I knew my role, I was needed and felt good about my contribution. Now that the group had managed to integrate a whole new batch of participants on it’s own, part of me feared not having a place anymore: Will I still belong if I’m not holding this role? Will people still respect me?

    Holding on to power out of a fear of not belonging is a really great way to fuck up a budding self-organizing social project. Had I not stepped aside to let others run the show, the experience would have been really icky for everyone. I came up against a growth edge there: can I hold the parts of myself that have a wound around belonging with compassion? Can I get their needs met, maybe by asking a friend to share some appreciation with me or by confirming with my co-host that we’re a great team? That day I couldn’t, I was a bit sulky and not very present. After a long walk with Rich who is a bit of a mentor to me in this space, I saw what was to be gained though: When I’m not busy holding or planning circles, because the group can do it on their own, I can become part of the group again, I can dive in more fully without having to hold the frame up. I’m free to focus on longer term vision with those that are also interested, or go deep with the people I’m curious about. I could offer more focused support to those that are stepping up to co-hold the structure together, or listen carefully to those who are not happy with how we are running the show. In short: once my capacity is freed up, because the group is holding itself largely, I am free to find a new, interesting and important role.

    This is where self-responsibility and the capacity to face uncertainty with equanimity comes in. When I was setting up the structure for the week with Jocelyn and holding that structure in the first couple of days my job was fairly simple. I knew what to do and how to do it and there wasn’t much brain capacity left to think outside of that. This made me feel secure. Now being faced with a choice, having come to a point where my old role had dissolved, I couldn’t know for sure what would be a good next step, because I hadn’t been at that point before. A situation like this puts human brains in to high alert: new situation = potentially a lot of new threats. Being anxious, hyperalert and seeing danger around every corner in new environments is how we survived the past millennia. So the impulse of my anxious brain was to go back to the safety of my old role and hold on to the power it came with, when actually what I needed to do, was to look the uncertainty in the eye, stay with the discomfort of not knowing, and just start experimenting again.

    Sometimes it can be frustrating to reach a new stage of development and feel like having to start all over again. When we accept the gift and surrender to not knowing, we gain access to our inner voice of wisdom, that got us there in the first place. This is all we need to master the next challenges really: just listen and surrender, listen and surrender. If you want to be in collaborative leadership, you have to be willing to let go of the roles you are comfortable with and adapt to what the context asks of you. Being of service to a greater whole can mean different things at different moments in time.

  • Engaging Interpersonal Tension and Conflict for Connection

    This article is part of the series “Learnings from the Embodying Collective Transformation Residency”. You can find an overview of all posts in that series and an intro to the topic here.

    One thing that is guaranteed to happen when you live in community for any amount of time, is interpersonal tension. There are always going to be some parts of you that react strongly to what someone else does or says. There is very likely also going to be a part of you, that wants to be polite and not immediately start a fight because of that. In this dynamic, there is tension within yourself and tension between you and someone else. At this stage, although maybe a bit uncomfortable, tension is fairly easy to address. If the “polite” part is too dominant though, the part that has a strong reaction to what someone else does or says might “go underground” (thanks Karl for this beautiful picture). This means it is off the radar of your conscious awareness, yet still active. The next time someone does something this part has a strong reaction to, it might come back even more forcefully and the polite part might not be able to tame it – you might say or do things that are in turn upsetting to the other person. Now we have conflict and it requires much more effort to transform than at the stage of tension.

    Consciously engaging interpersonal tension can be really connecting

    While my conditioning lets me default more towards conflict avoidance and keeping up “harmony”, this month I’ve experienced the power of engaging tension head-on. When I say “head-on”, I mean starting with my side of the tension. The first step is always to look at what gets activated in me. How am I feeling? What need do I have, so that what happened in physical reality makes me feel like that? Once I can gain some distance to my feelings (in IFS lingo: once I’ve unblended from my parts) and am able to engage the parts that got activated with compassion and curiosity I might find surprising answers to the above questions.

    For example, I had tension in relationship with someone that was very chatty and did not react to my subtle cues that I need to leave because I have a meeting one day a few weeks ago. I politely stayed to wait till the conversation came to a natural stopping point, where I didn’t have to interrupt the person to mention again, that I’m really sorry but I have to go now. Afterward, I was furious. The conversation that was going on inside sounded something like this:

    “How can they be so inconsiderate and insensitive to my hints? I’ve been listening to them so much and they just keep taking up space, without even appreciating it!”

    A few hours went by and some other things happened, that seemed to just reinforce my conclusion, that this person was an inconsiderate “taker” and that I had nothing to expect in return but to feel taken advantage of. When I finally surrendered to the fact, that I needed to do something about this, the first step was to get support in identifying, what was going on “on my side of the street”. A friend held space for me and guided my exploration of my inner landscape for half an hour and what came out the other end sounded entirely different:

    There is a part of me, that believes, that I will be pushed away and will no longer belong if I state too strongly what I need (like leaving, to go to a meeting). This part can get really dominant and hijack my system with people-pleasing behavior. There is also a part, that is tracking how balanced giving and receiving in a relationship is. It has a need for balance, reciprocity, and appreciation. When this part doesn’t get its needs met, it gets really angry and finds lots of mean things to say about the other person. In this case, the people pleaser was the one who prevented it from having its needs met. I can support the people pleaser to feel safe enough, so that it allows the need for appreciation and balance to be voiced, by expressing to the other person, how much I care about our relationship being healthy and unblocked as a first step in having this conversation. I can support the part that longs for balance to relax, by expressing this need to the other person and explaining how this dynamic got activated, and asking them, if it is okay for them if next time we are in a conversation and I need to leave, I just interrupt them.

    After having seen all of this complex dynamic and all of my parts having had space to express how they feel and what they need, I felt ready to take it to the other person. We went on a walk, and I shared what was alive for me. It was received with understanding and care and the tension within me and between us was gone.

    Imagine, how different, this conversation would have gone, if I had engaged them with the story I had in my head before receiving support or if I had waited another day for the tension to build up!

    The essence of this lesson for me was: engage tension, but do it from a place of clarity, compassion, and curiosity, rather than anger and frustration. This might require getting support from someone else first.


    Transforming Conflict can be A LOT of Work

    … but this is the work that we need to do.

    Depending on the depth of the triggers touched, it can require a whole community to engage in different aspects of a conflict transformation (or in other words transformative justice) process: to support the people directly involved, to support those who are touched secondarily, to support those who support. It can take a long time till there is a sense of resolution. The process is non-linear and might take unexpected twists and turns as new pain points get touched in people as others are dealt with. It might seem like resolution and reconciliation has been achieved one day, only to discover that there is still energy and pain present in people that need attention and support.

    Conflict and tension are never absolute

    Even while a conflict is active it is possible to relate. There is a place within us from which we can extend compassion toward someone we are in conflict with. Being able to do this is both useful for resolving the conflict and for having some time off. Urgency does not help, so take it slow, and have some fun in between if possible. Get a glimpse of what is there outside of tension and conflict.

  • Container Design for Psychological Safety and Trust

    This article is part of the series “Learnings from the Embodying Collective Transformation Residency”. You can find an overview of all posts in that series and an intro to the topic here.

    The whole idea behind events like the Embodying Collective Transformation residency is to create a social container, in which people can experience enough safety and trust, to observe their deepest engrained patterns of socialization, trauma, and protectiveness. The theory of change goes a little something like this: we all carry the burdens of oppressive and disconnecting paradigms inside of us. If we want to be truly effective as change agents, we need to transform ourselves and our relationships. On the other side, if we can transform dominant patterns in ourselves, we unleash enormous potential for doing good in the world.

    Trust is an Emergent Phenomenon

    So, we’ve established why this kind of work is important, that it goes deep and that trust is crucial to go deep. How do we create this trust now?

    Let’s start off with something seemingly simple, yet profoundly important: you can not trust anyone. At least not in the active sense. Has anyone ever told you: “Just trust me, it’ll be fine!”? What does it feel like to be told to “just trust”, when clearly parts of you have reasons not to trust a situation or person? Not so great right? Trust is rather an emergent property of a social system with enough psychological safety, so that we feel like we can show up fully, with all our parts, polarizations, feelings, and needs. A system can be tweaked in a way that makes the emergence of trust more likely.

    people in leadership positions modeling vulnerability, compassion, and appreciation

    In self-organized spaces, the power of a great leader lies in them recognizing the impact their small actions are having, seeing that people look to them for guidance on how to behave in this space, and what is and isn’t acceptable. If held with care, a leader can make a great contribution to an overall sense of safety for everyone, by showing their vulnerability, engaging others with compassion, and being prolific with precise appreciation. This “setting the tone” of interaction is the most crucial thing a hosting team has to pay attention to (and I think it was beautifully done at ECT).

    clarity and transparency about power

    Since there is always going to be power differences, even in spaces with the intention of getting rid of power, the most valuable thing we can do, is to talk about it, to be transparent and clear about how much power we think we have, how we feel about that and if and how we would like to change something about it. Relating to the first point, it is very useful if leaders open up this conversation, so people can rest assured: the people who hold more power can be approached about this topic, they will not take it as an attack on their authority and they also have an interest in sharing power.

    a shared understanding and lived culture of consent

    Sharing a common understanding of consent, especially around physical contact and intimacy, contributes greatly to psychological safety. While this understanding might evolve organically in more long-term groups, it can never hurt to have an explicit conversation about it. Especially in temporary communities, where people come in from different backgrounds, it is crucial to establish a shared reality. One great tool that was introduced by the hosting team at ECT is the Wheel of Consent – highly recommend checking it out.

    clear, commonly agreed upon and accessible support systems for emotional support and conflict transformation

    In addition to a lived culture of vulnerability, compassion, transparency, and consent, a more formal system for emotional support and conflict transformation is important to create safety. This might be as simple as making the resources in the room visible: who feels they generally have the capacity to support others in moments of disconnect? In a long-term community, it might be useful to have a regular time to check in with the whole community about their well-being, and any simmering tensions or conflicts. For example, at ECT we met every Wednesday evening for a community meeting, with the explicit purpose of voicing any tensions and making requests for support or dialogue.

    shared language to talk about feelings and needs

    What made it easy to engage in vulnerable conversations at ECT was, that we all shared the same language for talking about what was going on inside of us. Having a way of expressing complex emotions and knowing that they will be understood, increases trust and makes it safer to share freely what is going on inside. A culture of reflective listening also greatly contributes in a similar way.

    Spaciousness Enables Trust, Depth, and Real Progress

    In a day of training, you can grow more than in a two-hour workshop. In a week you can get to know 20 people to the degree that trust can emerge. In a month you can start feeling like you’ve never been anywhere else. This trust and familiarity is the substrate for inner development. At a certain point learning shifts from sessions to the in-between. The normal friction and tensions that arise between humans who share space for a prolonged period are the learning material. What kinds of transformations and learnings would become possible in 3/6/12 months? How would we be able to relate if we stayed?

    Having built trust is vital when conflict inevitably comes up. Transforming a conflict requires that both sides see and acknowledge each other both for their humanity, and their core needs, but also for the impact that their actions have and the pain that may have been caused. Revealing these deep parts of us can feel vulnerable and requires a high degree of psychological safety and capacity to co-regulate our nervous systems. Having a resilient support structure in place is just as crucial for everyone involved.

    What we need to trust can vary

    All of the things above are generally good ideas to create a safe container in which trust can emerge. However what I need to feel safe might vary a lot to what you need to feel safe. It is very important to check in with a group and have a sense for where they are at. Who is in the room? What capacity for holding themselves and others do they have? Which structures might be called for to support everyone in the room to thrive?

    Minimum Viable Structure serves to Satisfy Basic Needs

    As I’ve already talked about in my article “Key Learnings from the Microsolidarity Gathering”, minimum viable structure (MVS) is the art of creating just enough structure, to do the job, but not so much as to create additional overhead draining energy and time.

    In the case of this residency, the MVS ensured that basic needs like food, emotional support, and psychological safety were met and kept our shared spaces and resources, like the kitchen, bathroom, session room, laundry, or dishes, in a good state. The MVS is the sum of all the boundaries, that provide orientation, transparency, and clarity. It structures the social container and serves to create a space in which emergent things can happen (read the article linked above for a more general discussion of what it is, here I will dive deeper into what the MVS looked like at ECT).

    The main takeaway for me here is: what shape MVS takes depends very much on what you are trying to do, what resources are available to you, and what level of skill people bring. For example, at the microsolidarity gathering in May, home care was not part of the MVS, because we stayed at a venue where we were cooked for, and the common spaces were cleaned by someone else afterward (as far as I can remember). This was feasible because we stayed for a week and people could afford to pay for the service. At the ECT residency, we couldn’t have afforded someone to cook and clean for us for a whole month. Also, the intention was to practice community living in a more self-sufficient way. To satisfy those needs MVS had to include home care as well as pods (small groups that meet every day at a fixed time to support each other, practice tools that were introduced in sessions, and just provide a less overwhelming environment compared to the wider community), emotional support, and an open space agenda.

    So: when thinking about how much structure or what kind of structure your community, event, activist group, or flat share needs, think about what it is that you are trying to do first. What’s the intention? What are the conditions you are trying to do this in? What resources are available? And what kind of capacity do those involved have?

  • Learnings from the “Embodying Collective Transformation” Residency

    I spent November 2022 in Bergerac (France) at the “Embodying Collective Transformation” residency. The purpose of the residency was to deepen our practice on the inner, interpersonal, and systemic dimensions of collective transformation. It was the best month of my year and I am massively grateful to the hosting team (Karl Steyaert, Jocelyn Ames, Catherine Tran, and Nadine Helm) for making this happen and to everyone else who was there, for making it the deep, engaging, loving, fun and – dare I say – a transformational experience that it was!

    Initially, my intention was to publish one big blog post with my takeaways, but as I started writing more and more relevant things popped up. As off now this will be a 5 part series (with potentially more to come). In this overview article, I want to talk about, what actually happened, some high-level takeaways, and give an overview of the topics I will dive into deeper.

    Hard Facts – What Happened in November?

    The first week of the month was a training in Internal Family Systems (IFS), Non-Violent Communication (NVC), collaborative decision-making, emergent strategy, 1-1 Feedback, peer-therapy, and lots more. The rest of the month was a residential co-living experiment, with a shared backbone structure of home care, meals, emotional and conflict transformation support, and a co-created open space agenda. In the first week, we were 20 people and for the rest of the month between 15 and 10. We stayed at the beautiful Life Itself Hub in Bergerac, France. Thanks to Life Itself for providing this amazing space and making experiences like this possible!

    Embodying Collective Transformation – What does that mean?

    The way I’ve come to understand it, the idea behind embodiment is, to stop trying to fix the world with our heads, but to tune into the deep wisdom, that each of us carries in our bodies. This can literally mean noticing physical sensations in response to a question and basing your answer on that. The collective transformation part speaks to the idea, that the state of the world is reflected in each of our relationships. We can not change ourselves, without engaging in collective processes and we can’t change the world without changing ourselves and our relationships. So to summarize: embodying collective transformation speaks to me as an attitude toward life. It stands for a deep commitment to connection, care, and compassion, regenerative practices, collective action, conflict transformation, overcoming polarization, and ultimately thriving together.

    High Level Takeaways

    • Overcoming polarization in ourselves and interpersonal is probably the most essential skill to learn in the year 2022 if you want to be contributing to a world where every being can thrive (that’s why I talk so much about conflict in these articles, it’s not that we had particularly much conflict, it’s just that the conflicts I was involved in where the greatest moments of growth)
    • Community is in itself healing. Being close to others who share similar values daily creates a sense of safety and wholeness. Deepening healing, learning, and growing can happen from this place.
    • Looking inward is just as much (if not more) “the work” as going out and engaging with the world.
    • Dancing with power and leadership is a growing edge for most of us.
    • Transformation is possible, but it takes its time – no magic bullets after all 😉

    Deep Dive Topics

    Container Design for Psychological Safety and Trust – in this article I get into the nuts and bolts of transformational event design and explore what contributed to a feeling of trust and safety at the residency.

    Engaging Interpersonal Tension and Conflict for Connection – in this post I talk about the power of consciously engaging tension before it turns into conflict, describe one case in which I had a tension with someone and how I engaged it, what I’ve learnt to be valuable practices, and some more reflections.

    Dancing with power and leadership – this article will explore the potential that might get unleashed through truly fluid and transparent power dynamics and some reflections on the role of a leader. I’m still writing this and will link it once it is done (subscribe to my newsletter, if you don’t want to miss it!).

    The difference between green and teal – reflections on inclusion and exclusivity, community boundaries, communities of cohesion and inclusion, and what might become possible if we dare to be clear about which offer is for whom. This too is a work in progress.

    Transformative justice – a case study of transforming a boundary crossing in a community. Also still baking.

    Acknowledgements

    A lot of what I am describing in these articles is probably not my own original thought. It rather is the result of a web of people, passing on their wisdom through trainings, books, stories, poetry, songs, conversations around bonfires, art, and probably other ways. As far as I’m concerned I am at the receiving end of a big funnel and am nothing but the final processing unit through which all of this wisdom percolates before I write it down and pass it on to you. It is hard to tell where the knowledge originated, where my teachers got it from, and then where their teachers got it from, and so on. I will do my best to give credit where credit is due. If you find yourself quoted here, if you feel I’m misrepresenting your perspective or that I got it wrong – please do reach out, I would love to engage in aligning perspectives 🙂

    For this event I’ve received most of the content, choreography, and cultural knowledge from Karl Steyaert, Jocelyn Ames, Nadine Helm and Catherine Tran. They are all highly informed by Richard Schwartz’s Internal Family Systems and Marshal Rosenberg’s Non-Violent Communication. Both they and I are also drawing a lot from Richard Bartlett’s microsolidarity framework. I personally feel like adrienne maree brown’s work on emergent strategy and holding change also influences everything that I write. There are probably many more that could be named, but this is what’s most present at the moment.

  • Cultivating Relationships through Projects

    Cultivating Relationships through Projects

    In this article, I’m asking the question: How would project-based collaboration look differently, if we saw it as a means of cultivating relationships (rather than a way to produce results)?

    What is a project? You might think a project is something a group of people does to produce a result, create something, and change the world a little bit. For the vast majority of projects, this is probably true – except if you are doing something way different than everyone else. One thing that projects also do is cultivate relationships. Through working together we get to know each other in a different way, than if we just were to hang out as friends. Similar to how you get to know someone in a different way when you live with them or are in an intimate relationship. All these relationships have different qualities to them; they bring out different aspects of ourselves.

    I find this topic relevant because, over the past years I’ve found, that spending my time with people I really trust is just way more fun (surprising, I know) – plus strong relationships are the basis for lasting positive-sum1 impact.

    Why should I care about using projects as tools for cultivating relationships?

    The conventional way we look at projects sounds like a version of this: “We have this problem, that we need to solve. We already know what the solution might be, so let’s get to work on it. There are some different tasks that need to get done, so everybody: pick some, that you like or you think you’re good at. We’ll set some goals together for when we want to be done with the tasks. Now everybody go work on it, we’ll meet again tomorrow or in a week and see how everybody did.”

    Did I get that more or less right?

    This way of approaching projects is great for getting stuff done efficiently and quickly. It is especially well suited to hierarchical ways of organizing but also works well with self-organized teams.

    It is also very good at putting people under pressure, causing externalities, and brushing over important considerations, but that is a topic for another time. What I want to emphasize for the time being is an idea that I got from Richard D. Bartlett: Everything grows inside of something else.

    pine trees in forest photographed up from the ground.
    Like a tree in a forest, the way our relationships grow is highly dependent on the environment they are growing in.
    Photo by Casey Horner on Unsplash

    The Importance of Context for Cultivating Relationships

    Like the way a tree grows is heavily influenced by the conditions its environment provides, the way our relationships develop is greatly influenced by the social container they are happening in.

    The same two people going through military service together or studying political theory at a liberal university; you and your partner living together alone or in a shared house with 3 other people; a group of people working for an NGO to save the world or going for it on their own; being in a friends group where success is measured by money in the bank vs the ability to access your own emotions and be vulnerable.

    Context matters. Context always dictates to a great extent the shape a process takes. Looping back to projects as tools for cultivating relationships: the way we look at projects, and the idea we have about what a project is, shapes the context we create for ourselves, which in turn creates the conditions in which we develop. It’s a push-pull kinda situation we got here.

    Great! But why do I need a Project for that?

    Good question! You might say: “Nice idea with creating good contexts for ourselves and all, but why do I need projects for that? Can’t I just go create a different context?”

    What I’ve found in the past is, that it is extremely difficult to get people excited about an abstract idea of “creating a context in which we as people can grow together and build trusting and strong relationships”. I’ve tried these kinds of invitations and generally, it doesn’t work. What has worked almost always though is approaching someone with an idea for a project, like: “Hey, do you want to have a chat about how we could use both our skillsets together to provide service x to community y?”

    This gives people something to say yes to, something they can relate to more easily. The whole “creating a good context for relationships to grow in” thing – you don’t have to tell anyone right off the bat. Where it comes in, is in the way you are being in the collaboration. How do you express your needs, what kind of rhythm are you proposing? Do you start to draft an MVP and roadmap right off the bat or do you invite the other person or people to a long lunch where you just chat and get to know each other?

    A formula I have found useful

    Please take this with a grain of salt, everybody is different and this is the kind of thing where you kind of have to figure out the details for yourself. But to give you an idea of how this might look in practice I will briefly describe how I often experience successful projects (when they are framed under the paradigm of building relationships).

    Getting to know new collaborators

    What they all have in common, is that they start with a phase of undirected exploration. I might meet someone, that I just know I will vibe with and I know I want to get to know that person better. An inconspicuous first invitation is always: “Hey when we met at event X I really liked the way you talked about topic Y (plus what you liked about it). I have a feeling we could get along really well. Would you be down to have some lunch together someday?”

    During a “getting to know each other” phase, I am usually most interested in who the other person is, rather than what they do. What are they motivated by? What do they care about? What are the paradigms they operate under? What vision are they living from? How does this relate to who I am?

    If after this first common exploration there is still excitement on both parts to get to know each other, I might make an invitation to have a more concrete invitation to talk about the challenges we see in the world and to explore what a topic might be, that we are both excited to work on together. What direction this takes is usually quite obvious after getting to know each other a little.

    Diving into Collaboration

    Now comes the important part: when a topic emerges, don’t get too excited and go for a huge shiny project right off the bat. Rather go for a small and relatively easy project, that doesn’t require a lot of heavy lifting. Remember: it’s not about producing crazy results, but about cultivating trust and a strong relationship.

    Questions for this stage: What are we both (all) excited about? What is the smallest version of this, that is still a useful contribution? What kind of workload can we handle, so we have plenty of space to chat about life, debrief meetings and events extensively and share when we feel tension or disconnect?

    Once you have done a small first project together the most important thing is to debrief extensively. This is an important space to further explore where and how you are aligned. How did you feel throughout the collaboration? How do you feel about the impact you made? What did you learn about yourself?

    Final words

    To summarize the point I’m trying to make here once more: when we look at projects as a tool for cultivating relationships, rather than a means to have an impact, we are able to create conditions in which really strong relationships can grow, which can have a way greater beneficial impact in the future and are way more fun to be and work in.

    I’ve mostly experienced this kind of project-based relationship cultivation in 1:1 settings. I have had glimpses of it in small groups up to 5 people. Don’t try to get 10 or 15 people together to do this. To say it in the words of adrienne maree brown: “small is good, small is all”. Bigger things will come later. Focus on the small scale for now – it will save you a lot of pain.

    You can find a vocabulary for this fractal approach to relationships and community and a great collection of resources here: microsolidarity.cc. I’ve also offered workshops on this topic in the past (for example this one) and will do so again in the future. If you want to get notified about new workshop offerings, you can subscribe to my newsletter here.

    1 positive-sum is a term that describes the idea, that there is a way to interact in which everyone wins. It stands in contrast to zero-sum, which describes a scenario where there is a limited amount of good stuff, and not everyone can have some – this assumption leads to competitive behavior, whereas assuming positive-sum interactions are possible leads to cooperative behavior.

  • Analyzing Social Patterns Through The Lens Of A Cyclist

    Analyzing Social Patterns Through The Lens Of A Cyclist

    Cycling in Vienna I have verbal and non-verbal conflict with other participants in traffic almost every day. Some of the interactions are very friendly, most are very unpleasant and confrontational. Some are with pedestrians, a lot are with older men in big cars (especially unpleasant usually). What all of them have in common is a sense of “elbows out”. Despite these almost daily interactions adding a lot of stress to my life, I think they offer a great opportunity to put a magnifying glass on some of the social patterns, underlying values and challenges of western society.

    Image by Hans Braxmeier on Pixabay

    Scarcity Of Resources (In This Case Space) & Win-Loose-Dynamics

    There just are not enough bike lanes to accommodate all the people on bikes, cargo-bikes and e-scooters, so everyone can fit comfortably. In many places there aren’t bike lanes at all or they are built in such a way that it is safer to cycle on the street. Because there is not enough dedicated space for cyclists, we move into the domain of the cars (the street) and sometimes into the domain of pedestrians (the sidewalk). Because space is limited and everyone wants to get there first, this is a prime recipe for conflict. Me going 30 km/h on my bike in front of a car is an offense to their tightly packed schedule. At the same time a long queue of cars at a traffic light is an offense to my thighs: If I stop I have to get going again (ohh that burn in the legs!) — I might as well wind my way around the cars and over the intersection before the light turns red again.

    It often seems as though traffic is a battle for space, for getting there first, the right to use the street.

    No Social Fabric as a Basis for Self Organization

    Public space can be viewed as a common pool resource: It is nearly impossible to completely exclude anyone from using it and it has a finite flow of benefits (i.e. if I take up space, you can not take up the same space at the same time; if a lot of cars are parked in the street that space is no longer available for an urban garden or a bike lane; you get the idea…). Common pool resources can be governed by 3 mechanisms: top down public administration by the state, privatization and governance by the market or by all stakeholders through a self-organizing governance process. You can read more about the conditions that need to be fulfilled for each of these mechanisms to work and why I think self-organization should be the tool of choice, in this article.

    For self-organization to work as a governance mechanism for common pool resources there are some conditions, that need to be met: the most important one is cohesion, i.e. relationships between the participants in traffic, i.e. social fabric. When we think about how the use of public space could be decided upon, the challenges become clear: there are multiple scales of infrastructure inhabiting the same space. Big roads that are connecting different districts to each other and are connecting the city to the surrounding region and the highway systems might be right next to smaller roads, plazas or parks. This concept of scales is relevant, because identifying the scale we are talking about tells us who the relevant stakeholders are, that need to be in relationship with each other to effectively self-organize around the governance of public space. For the small back road it might only be the people living on that street — for the 4 lane connection road the boundary is first of all harder to draw and second of all it encompasses a much bigger group of stakeholders. This should make it quite clear why we don’t see more self-organized city planning efforts: public space is a big wicked mess and we are not even meeting the first condition for emergent solutions. This doesn’t mean that self-organizing city planning is impossible, it just means that we don’t have the adequate social technology to meet the conditions for it yet.

    Insufficient Scope of Top-Down Governance

    Because self-organization is so tricky to make possible, public space is governed by municipalities (in the case of most cities at least). A municipality is a centralized institution that is devising plans for how the finite amount of public space should best be used. They are basing their plans on some rough idea of what everybody needs and wants, but mostly they seem to be operating on a default assumption about what is needed. I can’t be sure about this, but this is my guess about what this assumption sounds like, judging by my experience of public space:

    “We need cars to be able to get everywhere. Everyone should be able to have a car and drive it wherever they want, all the time.”

    Of course this is a bit polemic, there is a slight shift noticeable but the ratio of space dedicated to cars vs. other means of transport is still very skewed in favor of cars.

    I’m also not saying that cars have no place at all. This is simply to say, that the centralized institution, trusted with organizing the use of public space, has a limited capacity to understand needs and is susceptible to particular interests put forth by groups with a lot of resources (for example the fossil fuel, car and construction industries). I’m not claiming that the Viennese city government is especially corrupt (which also wouldn’t surprise me) — this is just the nature of centralized institutions.

    One more aspect is a lack of accountability, that is built into the democratic process most western countries are employing these days: Of course no one cares if the people are annoyed with public infrastructure, as long as city officials aren’t feeling any consequences for doing a bad job.

    To summarize: City government doesn’t have the capacity or even the incentive to know what the actual landscape of needs of citizens look like. The result is public space is divided according to particular interests.

    Focus on Guilt, Shame and Individual Behavior

    Because we are so used to the conditions for change being so bad, we tend to focus on individual behavior rather than systemic issues. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been personally blamed and insulted for taking up space on the street with my bike — it happens all the time. I can however tell you how many times someone expressed their anger about the stupid layout of an intersection or the bike lane just ending: 0. Don’t get me wrong, me and my biking friends rant about it all the time (got to let it out somewhere). I’m talking about confrontations in traffic. Never has someone stopped next to me, rolled down their window and said: “Aren’t you also mad about how stupidly this intersection is laid out? Would you mind telling me about it and looking together if there is anything we can do to address this issue on a systemic level?”.

    Of course there is NGOs and civil society initiatives and social movements talking about these issues in systemic terms, but in day to day life on the street there seems to be no recognition of anything but individual guilt.

    This has of course to do with the lack of relationship between participants in traffic — it would be way harder to insult people you know and regularly interact with for nothing more than existing in public space.

    High Emotions, Sense of Identity and Fear of Death

    One additional reason that interactions in traffic are so unpleasant a lot of the time, has to do with the high emotional activation that people are experiencing. When I am riding my bike and a car cuts in right in front of me, or I have to brake or turn sharply to avoid someone suddenly stepping onto the bike lane, I am in survival mode. My amygdala takes over and I don’t have much control over the next thing I do — I am reactive rather than re-active. Probably my response to the person in the vehicle that should have given way to me but didn’t, will be rather unfriendly and accusatory. I know that this is not how I would normally react because almost always I have a moment of “ahh, damn, that is how I should have handled that situation”, once I had a chance to take a breath and get over the shock of almost crashing or being crashed into.

    Apart from the fear of physical injury, I have a sense that there is also a fear of social death that plays into the way people interact in traffic. The means of transport you choose is closely linked to other aspects of your identity a lot of the time. While this is especially true for people in cars (and even more so men in cars), I have also noticed a tendency in myself and my friends, to identify strongly in opposition to those people in cars: I am NOT one of them, I ride my bike, not only because I can’t afford a car, but because I have seen through the empty promise of status that comes with individual motorized transportation. It’s a hoax and I know it. They don’t. Us people on two wheels without a motor, we are the in-group.

    This is attached to a lot of other strands of political and social identity, so naturally the part of me, that strongly identifies with these things is very offended, when a guy in a suite, that is driving a Jaguar SUV tells me that I am a threat to public safety because I wear headphones while cycling (this literally happened to me the other day).

    Similarly for a lot of men in big cars it seems like, their sense of identity is so closely tied to how good they are at performing masculinity, that any hint at that being questioned is perceived as a direct assault on their whole being. The social construct of masculinity is fragile and always needs to be re-asserted by showing dominance over others. Conceding to a guy of lower status (me on my bike), that I was right to go over the green light and they should have looked and stopped before turning, while your wife is sitting next to you, seems to be about as big a threat to masculinity as cutting your balls off. So because the threat is so big, assertion of dominance must continue, no matter how obvious it is that you are wrong — roll down the window and swear at anyone who dears to question your righteous place at the top of the food chain.

    Conclusion

    Traffic is a messy and complex system. There are no straight forward solutions. In my view of the world the goal is very clear: a lot less cars, a lot more space for bikes and pedestrians and a lot more green spaces in cities is where we should orient. But how exactly this should be put in to practice, and what aspects should be particularly important has to be negotiated through some participatory process. Maybe democratic confederalism could be an inspiration for a governance model to start to get more people on board. What do you think?

    The idea for this article came to me after a week of particularly many unpleasant interactions in traffic. I am aware that I’m making a lot of claims and I would be honored to hear your opinion, if you think I got something wrong.

    Also, if you want to stay up to date with my work — my writing, podcasts, workshop offerings, additional resources — you can sign up to my monthly newsletter through this link or follow me on twitter. The topics revolve around systemic change, community building and regenerative practices for contributing to a livable future for all.

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

    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

    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.

    The “Poppy Tent” at climate camp Vienna, in which this workshop happened. Photo: ©Doris Fazekas

    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.

    The “Poppy Tent” at climate camp Vienna, in which this workshop happened. Photo: ©Doris Fazekas

    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!