The context of the project may sound very specific, but the outcome is a brilliant resource for any person facilitating processes of exchange, dialogue and discussion anywhere in the world!

The study was commissioned by the German Technical Cooperation Organisation (GTZ) in support to the HIV/AIDS Programme of the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

You may wonder what the work of Mandela’s foundation against AIDS has to do with dialogue. Well, promoting dialogue has been and remains one of the prime goals of the foundation’s HIV programme.

“Maintaining public interest in HIV and AIDS has proven to be a key to beginning to challenge individuals and organisations on an increasing and significant scale to help those who are affected and infected.”

It is in the framework of this thinking that an excellent toolkit on dialogue was produced which introduces itself by quoting the author of Sophie’s World and Norwegian intellectual, Jostein Gaarder:

“An answer is always the part of the road that is behind you. Only questions point to the future.”

The introduction continues to set the ground for the publication by observing that our modern world loves answers and quick solutions to problems, which we love to pass on to others through writing, teaching and lecturing. The authors continue to state, and I could not agree more, that this approach — while being useful in some situations — is problematic when addressing the challenges of our time – social and human, economic and political.

Why is that so?

Pioneers of Change and the GTZ have two reasons to give to the answer-craving audience:

Firstly, we live in a world of increasing complexity, where answers have a short life-span and problems are characterised by three types of complexity: dynamic complexity, social complexity and generative complexity.

Secondly, people seem to have an inherent desire to solve their own problems, which is why universal, formulaic responses imposed from the outside often fail — producing even more simplistic “solutions”.

So, dialogue is the ultimate solution then?!

Well, not so quickly! Let’s have a closer look at the two reasons and see where this takes us.

The idea of threefold complexity stems from Adam Kahane and his book «Solving tough problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities» about which Nelson Mandela said:

“This breakthrough book addresses the central challenge of our time: finding a way to work together to solve the problems we have created.”

In his book Kahane typifies complexity and in doing so differentiates between

• dynamic complexity, meaning that cause and effect are distant in space and time and suggesting that a systemic approach is needed to address this type of complexity and underlying problems,
• social complexity, meaning that there is no singular truth or ownership of an issue but rather many different and usually conflicting opinions and assumptions about the problem in question, suggesting that a participative approach is required to deal with this kind of complexity,
• generative complexity, meaning the problematic situation is constantly and unpredictably changing and therefore old solutions to previous problems are not working any longer, suggesting that a creative approach is necessary to cope with this form of complexity.

In other words, Kahane claims that today’s problems can only be solved by processes which are holistic, democratic and imaginative.

And how could you better combine these approaches than through shared experience and exchange? How could you better stimulate new ideas and utilise the wisdom of crowds than through genuine dialogue?

So here it is then, the spirit in which this handbook critically explores different tools and methods to engage in processes of authentic dialogue. Excitingly, the authors have not just described a couple of tools. They have done much more in looking at the stories behind the approaches and asking where they come from to put each approach into a context.

It is because of this contextualisation and historicisation that the book can also provide unique space for constructive and critical reflection by showing limits or pointing out weaknesses of the approaches described. At the same time, the publication gives hints on how to creatively combine different methods and strategies to best respond to the situation at hand.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the publication’s approach and my point. You all know very well the circle as a method of engaging in dialogue with groups of up to 30 people or so. Well, the book has something important to say on the circle:

“For many who are not used to the circle, the slowness of the conversation and thinking can be frustrating… It’s worth noting that social science research has actually been done to show that the first person to speak can have a large influence on what is said and the direction the conversation takes. The circle seems particularly prone to this dynamic. This can be useful, but it can also be problematic.”

To cut a long story short: In doing these things it is so much better than most toolboxes out there. Actually, by doing these things it is much better than most toolboxes out there.

So what exactly are you waiting for?
Right click, save as, print and read!

And obviously: try out and explore in practice, and if you have something to say
please do give feedback to the authors – it will surely be appreciated…

∞

It was quite interesting to observe the effects described by Sloterdijk as “identification with one’s nation for a few hours” during the conference on the Youth in Action – Quality in European Youth Work in Bonn. People like me, who would never agree being boxed as German, for a few hours went totally berserk. So did the Italians, by the way…

Anyway. May Portugal win!

Here comes an excerpt of the interview, the original German version can for instance be found here. The translation is courtesy of Peter Lauritzen (thanks!).

Extract from an interview on the forthcoming World Championship in football with Peter SLOTERDIJK, Der Spiegel No 23, June 3, 2006, p. 72

Sloterdijk: “National football teams have practically no real existence outside such a tournament. Within the tournament they function as ‘Nation-simulators’, which remind a population that they can identify with them, if they wish.”?

Der Spiegel: “And this functions?”

Sloterdijk: “Very well, because the desires of people to participate would be chronically underemployed otherwise. We do not live in a world which addresses needs to participate. On the contrary: one belongs all the time to oneself, or to one’s own future, in the best case. One has a few relations and on top of that one may be part of networks, as we say today. But people in networks are already in a postnational situation anyway. Generally, one does not want any more to be obsessed by a community. The drift of civilisation goes towards dissolutions of communities and this for a very good reason: because self-conscious individuals can no longer or only with difficulty bear to be bothered by ‘groups of belonging’. We do not want to be representatives of our own tribe and we do not want to represent our nation elsewhere. But then there are situations where one wants to identify with one’s nation for a few hours.”

Der Spiegel: “If national identity comes through in the national team, would it not be logical then to write into the questionaires meant to legitimate immigration questions such as: Who has played for Germany in the final of 1974? As a kind of proof that somebody is really interested in the country?”

Sloterdijk: “Why not? But then the possibility should exist to show by answering the opposite, that one belongs to this country. The bad Germans have been the good Germans so far – this should also be allowed to foreigners. Who intends to immigrate should have the freedom to say:’ I am a bad patriot, this is why this is the right country for me. This whole mischpoke of Beckenbauer and consorts can go to Coventry. I find sport idiotic and it would be best, if we loose. This is why I have a right to join this nation.’”

Will it exist in a corresponding line to their participation in voting at all sort of levels, local, national, European? Or is there a very different pattern of participation preparing itself; efficient, real but not reflected in voting procedures? What is the key to understand the power aspect of participation of young people in public policies?

Looking at this, a reflection on the changing nature of public policy in the youth field comes to mind – from government to governance, from purely state action to a negotiated co-production of public policies in co-operation with the civil society, i.e. non-profit organisations, including youth associations. The role of the state might become less and less visible in the future and what a country can mobilise in terms of voluntary energy can become crucial for fields such as social services, health care, ecology and education. All this has to do with being able to associate young people to public affairs and to do this with the clear intention to also give them roles and responsibility very early. Someone who can develop a computer company in the garage can also have his or her voice heard in the city council; who understands complex computer programmes at young age can also contribute to the teaching of mathematics and informatics at school and trendsetters in modern lifestyle sports can also say a lot about the organisation of urban space. Everybody in politics claims the participation of the young – in what exactly? In what they think young people should participate in? Or could they also engage in some risky co-operation project? It is true that youth participation is crucial to overcome apathy in the political process – but honest policy, close to the people, can do this job even better and if there is none or not enough of it, there is no need to spread moral panics about the young and their distance to public policies instead. Youth participation cannot be had cheaply any more; it has to come over as a real offer to share the power and it is time that this happens.

For the Council of Europe and the European Commission to work on the participation of young people in public affairs is part of their youth policy mandate, be it in the new policy following the publication of the White Paper on youth for the Commission or in the daily practice of co-management of funds and programmes between public youth authorities and NGOs in the Council of Europe.

But this is not enough; the institutional practice needs to communicate with research findings. This way the couple public authority – civil society enlarges into the triangle public authority – civil society – research community and intentions are confronted with evidence. It is for you to judge whether recent research enlarges the quality of the discourse on participation.