The desire to understand and classify different types of human relationships isn’t new; we’ve been pondering it for thousands of years. What rules govern our interactions? And how do relationships shape us into the people we become?
The answers aren’t immediately straight forward, because the way we interact with each other is influenced by many things: how well we know and trust people, who’s got more power, the agreed understanding of reciprocation or exchange, and whether we converge around a common interest or selfish need. These things can be very fluid, too. Think about how you’d interact with a friend, a colleague, your grandmother, in a range of different situations. While you might see these people as being in different ‘categories’ of relationship, you probably have a rich variety of ways you interact with every one of them. Moment to moment, mood to mood, you’ll be laughing, arguing, teaching, ignoring or sharing with each other, although perhaps not in equal measure.
As social creatures, our experience of relationships is a huge part of how we develop. Our values, personalities and tastes are strongly influenced by our interactions with our parents growing up, with our colleagues at work, with the natural world. And this influence goes both ways. Not only do our values inform the types of relationships we seek, but our values also change over time as a result of our relationships. By understanding this feedback loop a little better, we gain useful insights into social and environmental problems.
Relationship theory is a tool to guide better ways of talking to each other, organising our workplace, and supporting campaigns or causes. Read more
This blog was written by Lara Kirch and Micha Narberhaus at Smart CSOs.
As we have experienced in the Smart CSOs community over the last two years, changing an organisation to work on system change is far from an easy task. Most civil society organisations are deeply entrenched in the current system. We might irritate partners and constituencies if we don’t fulfil their expectations and we have a reputation and trust to lose. Most available funding schemes are far from supporting the type of uncertain work needed for long-term system change. But the most difficult part is to change the organisation’s culture, its structure and way of doing things. It requires a change in mindsets and developing the right capacities.
Maybe it is not a surprise that recently some church and faith-based organisations have been among the most progressive pioneers in starting to promote and communicate an alternative vision for a socially and environmentally sustainable global society that is based on sufficiency, solidarity and community. They are grounded on exactly these values.
The advocacy department of Tearfund, a UK Christian relief and development agency founded in 1968, has recently embarked on a change process aimed at aligning its strategic focus and internal structures with a vision of an economy that works for people and the planet. Sarah Anthony and Tom Baker from Tearfund’s advocacy team have told us how they have approached this challenge and what they have learned so far. Read more
In June, we’re running a Common Cause training course in the beautiful hills of mid-Wales.
It will comprise an exciting three days of participatory learning, exploring creative, values-based tools for social or environmental change.
Find out more here.
Interesting things we’ve been reading, watching or listening to this month:
- Empathy vs. sympathy – connection vs. disconnection. Empathy is “I know what it’s like down here and you’re not alone.” Sympathy is “Ooh. It’s bad, uh huh. Do you want a sandwich?”
- The status quo is not values-free – ‘realism’ is a value-laden position. ‘We have lost faith in any of the large available understandings of how structural change takes place in history, and as a result, we fall back on a bastardised conception of political realism, namely that a proposal is realistic to the extent that it approaches what already exists. This false view then aggravates [our] paralysis. What hits you like a hammer is that word “realistic” – it’s the thing people say when they actively don’t want change. It’s the avoidant atrophy of the miniscule reform, the circularity of entitlement – “Who decides what’s realistic?” “Me, because I’m in charge.” “Why are you in charge?” “Because I’m so realistic.”’
- Paul Piff: Does money make you mean? – A great TED talk on the psychological impacts of getting rich, even with monopoly money. How does temporary wealth make people behave? (Hint: badly). Includes gem research headlines like “people who feel wealthy are more likely to steal sweets from children.”
- Climate change & stealth denial – A new report from the RSA: ‘The point is not so much to change values, as to strengthen those already latent values that are most useful with respect to dealing with climate change’.
- Materialism in children’s books – Has risen over the past 15 years…
- New Progressive Development Forum Charter – “The organisations and institutions that we work for, with and through in the UK and worldwide must take on a more critical analysis of power and engage in political processes to tackle the inequalities of power, wealth and resources that create and maintain injustice and poverty.”
I was told an inspiring story by a colleague from a conservation organisation involved in the Common Cause for Nature project recently and thought that was worth sharing.
He said to me that for as long as he had been in the press team he had often regretted not doing a more practical degree so that he could have done proper “on the ground” conservation. However, since his involvement in the Common Cause for Nature project, his increased understanding of psychology meant he could see that his work was conservation – he now understood that communication is conservation.
The Common Cause for Nature report shows that both experiences and communications are important in influencing people’s motivation and therefore key to achieving a future better for wildlife. In other words, communication is an important component in delivering wider public support for conservation.
In the report we recommend the following with regard to communications:
- Talk more about how amazing nature is and use inspiring pictures to reinforce this
- Talk about caring for other people
- Give members and supporters active roles – encourage them do their own thing and be creative
- Be clear about both what the problems are and what solutions are needed
- Make solutions proportionate to the problem, if the ask is something small show how it relates to the bigger change needed.
- Overemphasize threat – threat is important in raising awareness but over using it can make people feel helpless
- Ignore the problems or the solutions – both are needed to make it clear why action is important
- Appeal to the desire for power and money
- Don’t appeal to conflicting values at the same time – avoid using intrinsic and extrinsic values together
- Portray your organisation as a lone superhero – we cannot succeed on our own, messages should emphasize how members and supporters are part of the solution.
Although incredibly important, communication is only one thread. We need to bring an understanding of values into all areas of conservation work. The report outlines recommendations for other work areas as well as ways in which organisations themselves can adopt working practices to strengthen their own values.
Read the full report here to find out more.
Examining The State of Nature report from a values perspective.
The State of Nature Report certainly hit the headlines and managed get a large amount of coverage.
However, the extent of coverage is only one way to measure the impact of this report. A more important question to answer is what impact the report and its associated coverage have are likely to have on the motivation on the people who saw the coverage. In the following case study we attempt to assess these likely impacts.
To get the most out of the following analysis we suggest that you read the CCFN practitioners guide first or read this first.
For ease of understanding we have split up the report and associated coverage into the following sections:
- The Launch Video
- The Main Report
- The Executive Summary
- The letter to Cameron
- Social media coverage
- General press coverage
- Iolo Williams talk at the launch Read more
In October the Smart CSOs Lab hosted a conference in Germany attended by over 80 activists and researchers from 14 different countries. This video was produced at the conference and shows voices of activists from different parts of the world and different sectors of civil society talking about their frustrations, motivations and inspirations to join the growing movement for systemic change.
Smart CSOs is an initiative inspiring people to start searching for new civil society stories to overcome the frustrations many of us are feeling by working in our issue silos and by fighting the symptoms while knowing that we need to tackle the root causes of the multiple crises of our times.
Go check them out: Smart CSOs