Archive for category Change

The Big Lunch 2010 and the importance of “social capital”

The Big Lunch 2010 - Sudbourne Road“I do not refer to real estate, or to personal property or to cold cash, but rather to that in life which tends to make these tangible substances count for most in the daily lives of people, namely, goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit… If he may come into contact with his neighbor, and they with other neighbors, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community. The community as a whole will benefit by the cooperation of all its parts, while the individual will find in his associations the advantages of the help, the sympathy, and the fellowship of his neighbors” (Hanifan, L. J. 1916)

Last Sunday, 18th July, the residents of Sudbourne Road, Brixton, gathered to celebrate “The Big Lunch 2010″. Under appropriately blue skies our sleepy, if perfectly formed, slice of south London was transformed for an afternoon into a theatre of food, music, dancing, playing, face painting, badge making, ice cream slurping and neighbourly celebration.

Pre-dating the now ubiquitous “Big Society”, TBL is – like all good ideas – a very simple one. By encouraging neighbours and communities to come together and socialise within the simple construct of a street party, they believe we can:

  • Build and improve community spirit and engagement
  • Make the third of us who live alone feel happier, closer and… friendlier
  • Conquer our natural shyness, to open our curtains, doors and minds and look out for one another
  • Share stories, skills and tools, so we all end up richer in every sense
  • Discover common ground across age, class, faith, race and the garden fence.
  • And you know what. It might just work.

    I’ve lived on this street for over two years.  It’s a beautiful place. Yet we only knew the wonderful couple who rent the flat below us and our neighbours to the right. And really, that was it before last Sunday. And it’s interesting how that seems entirely acceptable for so long. How you can live in such close proximity to so many people and yet live so very far apart.

    I won’t deny to being a little bit cynical when Lucy Sherwood (our fearless leader for 2010) dropped the first of the leaflets for this year’s event through the door. It’s just easier that way it seems. But I couldn’t help but notice that as the day grew closer the greater my anticipation – and hopes – grew. The evolutionary psychologist in me would have diagnosed this as the natural reaction of any innately social animal, but it was also in part triggered by my long held interest in behavioural psychology – particularly when concerned with collective/group behaviour – both in the workplace and in society at large. In particular, two of my favorite studies on the role and importance of community or social capital, kept playing out in my mind. 

    In 1995 Robert Putnam published a groundbreaking study of the growing fragmentation and associated dislocation of community and group life in America. Initially published as an article in the Journal of Democracy ““Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, a book of the same name in 2000 went on to be a bestseller.  According to Putnam, social capital “refers to the collective value of all ‘social networks‘ and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other”. According to Putnam, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. Putnam’s studies of modern American life led him to conclude that social capital is declining in the United States. This is seen in lower levels of trust in government and lower levels of civic participation. Putnam also says that television and urban sprawl have had a significant role in making America far less ‘connected’. Putnam believes that social capital can be measured by the amount of trust and “reciprocity” in a community or between individuals.

    Anyone familiar with life in N. Ireland or wider United Kingdom will recognise that the trends described by Puttnam are mirrored here. As The Big Lunch website itself reminds us:

  • Two million more single person households are forecast by 2019.
  • We have more rich, poor and ethnic ghettos than ever before.
  • There has been a 7% annual drop in trust between neighbours from 2003-05.
  • Social trust in the UK halved and now among the lowest in Europe.
  • While there are subtleties to be recognised with regard to some disadvantages and inequalities associated with the creation and distribution of ’social capital’, in the main commentators agree that it can be an extremely positive force – increasing civic and political participation (”The Big Society”), contributing to our personal and collective mental well-being (The New Economics Foundation) as well as improving our physical health and life expectancy.

    Those of you who have read Malcolm Gladwell’s excellent Outliers, will be familiar with what has become known as “The Roseto Effect”.  In the mid 1960’s medical researchers – led by Stewart Wolf (a physician) - were drawn to Roseto (a close-knit Italian-American community Pennsylvania) by a fascinating but puzzling statistic: defying medical logic, Rosetans died of heart attacks at a rate only half that of the rest of America. The men of the village smoked and drank wine without moderation. They worked out their days doing hard manual labor in nearby slate quarries. The Mediterranean diet, with its preference for olive oil rather than animal fats, had to be compromised as poor immigrants couldn’t afford to import cooking oil from their homeland and so instead they fried their sausages and browned their meatballs in lard (don’t we all?). Yet, they retained unusually healthy hearts in spite of their unhealthy diet and lifestyle. The question was: How?

    In “The Power of Clan”, a report on studies conducted by Wolf and John Bruhn (a sociologist) over a broad period of time from 1935 to 1984, they found that mutual respect and cooperation contribute to the health and welfare of a community and its inhabitants while a lack of concern for others and self indulgence have the opposite effect.

    Studying the history of Roseto, they found that early immigrants were shunned by the English and Welsh who dominated this corner of eastern Pennsylvania. As a result, the Rosetans turned inward and built their own culture of cooperation and community.

    “People are nourished by other people,” said Wolf, noting that the characteristics of tight-knit community are better predictors of healthy hearts than are low levels of serum cholesterol or tobacco use. He explained that an isolated individual may be overwhelmed by the problems of everyday life. Such a person internalized that feeling as stress which, in turn, can adversely affect everything from blood pressure to kidney function. That, however, is much less likely to be the outcome when a person is surrounded by caring friends, neighbors and relatives. The sense of being supported reduces stress and the disease stress engenders.

    More recently studies in both the USA and here by the BMJ have confirmed the correlation between an active social life/set of social connections and longer life expectancy.

    And though it my not have felt that way as  I hoovered up Sudbourne Road’s finest samosa’s, jerk chicken, potato salad, sausages, ice cream and baked goods; there was an undeniable feeling of hope, optimism and yes, “well being” (personal an collective) as the evening drew to a close.

    New neighbours had been met; interesting conversations held; ideas on matters of interest to the local community – schooling and local planning applications in particular - were exchanged; histories shared; new friendships made. We appear – and it’s a shame on me that this was even remotely a surprise – to live among wonderful people with shared aspirations, hopes and fears for our street, their families and themelves.

    And so in the midst of all the semantic scuffles about The Big Society (or more locally known as Lambeth’s “Co-Operative Council”), what it is and what it might/must become it was a delightful thought that something as simple as a set of street parties, held across the UK, bringing neighbours together one day in July, might just be doing more for all of us than David Cameron’s band of merry social architects as yet.

    “People are nourished by other people”.  That’s the Big Lunch. Literally and metaphorically.

    Long may it run.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    , ,

    No Comments

    Stop the clocks – Change success revelation!

    List of Christian thinkers in science
    Image via Wikipedia

    The Harvard Business Review rarely lets me down but today they strayed into the business of “stating  the bloody obvious”:

    http://web.hbr.org/email/archive/dailystat.php?date=051010

    I mean what next: Joseph Ratzinger outed as a Catholic and a bear found “taking a break” in the woods? I hope they got reduced rates from McKinsey on this one!!

    Employee engagement in change programs has long been known to be a critical success factor in any effort at organisational change so no idea why this was worthy of “Daily Stat” release today or any other day.

    I’ll forgive them this time…but something inside me died a little…

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    ,

    No Comments

    Images of another Ireland

    http://www.richardfitzgerald.com/irelandimages/irl_page1/esspage1frameset.htm

    Beautiful images of another Ireland. Hard to believe how relatively recently some of these images were captured and a timely reminder of the many changes – some good, some not so good – that we have witnessed on our island in the last 30 years.

    The book is sensational.

    ,

    No Comments

    An Education

    BRISTOL, UNITED KINGDOM - FEBRUARY 24:  Primar...
    Image by Getty Images via Daylife

    I meant to comment on this last month but travel kept me away from the PC:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7026852.ece

    This was a fascinating article on February’s Sutton Trust Report and I was actually genuinely delighted to see an echo of a  few of my suggestions made back in October 2009 in a article on the long running post Primary School selection process in Northern Ireland:

    http://www.shanepcarmichael.com/2009/11/selection-its-only-natural/   

    (check under “some humble suggestions”)

    More and more we are coming to understand that education is a sophisticated and much more social process than any narrow debate in NI about post primary education selection or means of selection would have us believe. Consistently on this blog I have maintained that while some form of streaming or selection is a must in any mature and inclusive education system, our real focus should be on primary education; on ensuring our administration of that education is innovative and inclusive enough to support pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds and encouraging an ethos of and commitment to  ”concerted cultivation” of our young children among parents and local communities.  We are currently failing our young people during their most formative years.

    NI has wasted over a year wrangling on the narrow issue of post primary selection. It’s time someone started to address the more fundamental – and root cause – issues associated with Primary Education,othewse the means of post Primary selection will be entirely a moot point.  There are some easy ‘quick win’ fixes to this challenge as I and the Sutton Report suggest while we understand how to cultivate that wider community and parental ability to cntribute to the life-long success of our most precious resources 

     

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    No Comments

    (un)Easy Councils

    Go Fly Boeing 737 (G-IGOB) at Bristol Airport,...
    Image via Wikipedia

    A few months ago there was much media interest in a proposal by Mike Freer, then leader of Barnet Council, to change the relationship between local councils and the citizens it serves with the focus being on finding and delivering efficiencies.

    I read an interesting article with Mr Freer in today’s Guardian which promptd me to scrawl these thoughts…

    In summary the three pronged approach proposed is thus:

     

     

     

    1. Offer a basic set of services with additional or prioritised services subject to supplementary payments (where allowed within law). This element of the strategy led to the media labelling the proposal as creating “easyCouncils” after EasyJet and its no frills approach to business - somewhat disproportionately given it was only one part of the “Future Shape” strategy
    2. The consolidation (in the name of efficiency) and streamlining of back office public sector functions in an area (aka shared services) and the creation of (our old favorite) a central shared citizen database to enable easier access to citizen needs across multiple service areas reducing duplication of contact and service
    3. Targeted intervention strategies for those families who are “high cost” cases including a dedicated liaison officer per family.

    In principle I think all this is pretty unexciting stuff - none of it is enormously groundbreaking, particularly points 2 & 3. Although I find unpalatable in the extreme the idea of ‘levels of service’ determined by the ability to pay. That’s just not in my view an acceptable way to deliver public services.

    The idea of consolidating back office functions in Government is one I have experience of. Having been around a significant number of Public Sector ”back office streamlining and consolidation” or “single database” or “revised channel/service strategy” projects it’s not so much “easyCouncils” as (un)easyCouncils. 

    None of these things are insurmountable to deliver but they are not insignificant areas of change (people, process and technology) particularly when trying to maintain business operations as usual.  These things require significant and sometimes extended up front and ongoing investment – financial and operational. New systems and new ways of working – across councils and departments while changing front line working practices (a change not easy to facilitate overnight). And who will foot that bill and for how long before savings are realised? And let’s not mention the legal wrangles that are sure to come or how this will impact any attempt at cross Council Service Provision comparison?

    Followers of Vanguard and John Seddon would go even further and say that there is no evidence that these “shared service” models work at all: http://www.lgcplus.com/5010322.article

    I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done to reinvigorate local government and re-empowering local Councils to find new service models is fundamental to many things, not least reinvigorating our political system. But it definitely isn’t “easy”.

    I am counting down the days until we start to hear the language of the last era of Public Sector austerity – the early 2000’s – and in particular that favorite phrase of the day: “Spend to Save”. It rolls off the tongue quite nicely doesn’t it. I can hear many Consultants across the land whispering it manta-like on their way to work…”Spend to Save”…”Spend to Save”…that’s right, repeat after me….

     

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , ,

    1 Comment

    Virtual Revolution or Virtual Evolution?

    Partial map of the Internet based on the Janua...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Very much enjoyed last night’s first installment of the BBC’s “Virtual Revolution” series

     www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution

    As well as providing some interesting (and often personal) insights on the history of the “web” and some of its current uses for individual and greater good, what was most interesting to me was the recognition that the Internet, far from redefining human nature, is ultimately a very pure reflection of it.

    As one commentator remarked in the course of the programme:

    “The Internet, like all technologies, is not a cure for human nature, it is simply an amplification of human nature”

     I think that’s a beautiful phrase – “an amplification of  human nature”. For on and in our uses of the Internet we do see the very best and very worst of ourselves as individuals and collectives.  Some amplifications are more surprising than others of course – I mean who would have though that sleepy sophisticated Harrogate would be the leading lights in accessing “adult material” on the Internet!

    This notion of “amplification” rather than “redefinition” of human nature echoes what the brilliant Clay Shirky suggested in his book “Here Comes Everybody” – that the Internet does not necessarily create new motivations, it simply allows existing or latent motivation to be realised more efficiently (and immediately). As do the words of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg when asked by an audience of Global leaders recently: “How do we create a community (Facebook) like yours?”. Zuckerberg’s answer: “You can’t”. And he is right. Communities are not a creation of the web or anything else. They are a simple reflection of latent/existing human motivations/needs.

    We use these tools to enable us to do the things we aready desire or feel to be important. Hence the success of community tools like Facebook, LinkedIn or MeetUp – man has, for millenia, sought out connection and community, both out of personal need for connection with others and an evolutionary instinct that ’the collective’ offer us advantages as individuals and a society in the provision of services and allocation of resources.

    I mention this only because of my interest in evolutionary psychology, the non technical aspects of change management and a growing interest – and some cases misunderstanding – of the web’s transformative power among business, particularly in relation to the creation of “communities of practice”.

    There is a lesson here for both society and business in considering our relationship with the web and the social technologies it has spawned. These technologies and how they are used will reflect the culture of our society, communities and business operations. They won’t transform it’s core tenets, only how we share, collaborate and co-operate….and if we currently don’t share, collaborate and co-operate then a simple implementation of Twitter, Ning, Sharepoint or any other social media technology won’t change that. In a business context the lesson is this: social technologies will work best in an environment when people are aready motivated and able (skilled, have the opportunity etc)  to harness them to meet their existing motivations (to share, to learn, to drive business results).  Where communities of purpose, not practice, already exist and just need a more efficient means to practice as a collective.

    This applies just as much – if not more so for Government aspirations for Gov 2.0. There is a danger that if we don’t find ways to engage and enable those in society with whom Government conducts most of its interactions (and whom are least likely to be connected to the Internet) then Gov 2.0 will fail as it will simply amplify the dislocation between of Government and the people who need it most (as I mentoned before, almost 80% of Government transactions are conducted with 20% of the UK population base and based on socio-economic esearch that 20% represent those sections of society least likely to be ‘web-enabled’).

    So – hear ye. Without a better understanding of how our current business and social communities work and an investment in fostering a culture conducive to sharing and collaborating, the web and its manifold technologies will simply amplify the corporate or community status quo. Think more of the same only a little sexier, faster and more acute. And that would be a real shame.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , , , ,

    1 Comment

    Government & Enabling Technologies: Evolution not Revolution

    It has been a very interesting January for those of us interested in Government and IT Transformation. Among other things we’ve enjoyed:

    But before I got too excited, my good friend Lee Hopkins sent me this little snippet from yesterday’s Guardian as a reminder that when it comes to technology and transformation the key word in Government is evolution not revolution. Still – I thought it was almost charming….

    “Smith admitted that the government had not always been quick to embrace new technology. “Back in 1885, the civil service bought its first-ever typewriter, despite stiff resistance from in-house calligraphers. About 20 years later the government took another leap into the unknown when it invested in its first telephone, a mere three decades after the technology was first demonstrated.”

    (Angela Smith Cabinet Office Minister – Guardian 28/01/10)

     

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , , , , , ,

    No Comments

    Outside the school gates…

    Larkmead School Main Building
    Image via Wikipedia

    Been thinking more today about my earlier piece on post Primary school selection here.

    Leaving the rights and wrongs of selection itself as a policy aside, I am more and more convinced that the real priority for the NI Government on education should be focused on improving the standards of primary education across the board but perhaps most importantly: improving the relationship between schooling and the local community (including parents). Particularly so in areas of social deprivation which (no surprise) are showing sustained and worrying levels of systemic educational failure.

    A thought occurred to me on a bus the other day as a horde (I don’t use that word lightly) of school children rolled on in the mid afternoon.

    A rough calculation suggested to me that as a percentage of total waking hours, students will spend 20% – 25%(approximately) of that time in a school environment. Yet we know from social psychologists that the ability/motivation/emotional propensity to achieve while in school is largely determined by the environment (physical, social and emotional) in which those students spend the other 80% of their time. Selection or not, many of those students who the Government believe will benefit from the abolition of selection will experience nothing of the sort simply because they come from environments where there is not a culture of learning or “concerted cultivation”. Not even the greatest of schools or the best of teachers can ‘undo’ or ‘compete against’ what is learned/conditioned/encouraged by society in the majority of their time – which is spent outside the classroom.

    Again – I recognise this idea of learning being as much social as institutional is a much more significant and complex approach to addressing the issues in our educational system – certainly it will win fewer headlines (and possibly votes) than the abolition of the 11+ selection tests. It will necessarily have to recognise and address real issues of social and economic disadvantage but it is, I am convinced, at the very core of what needs to be done for the longer term. Otherwise the scenes of youth violence in Belfast City Centre last week will become more and more commonplace and the dire statistics that show more and more of our young people from deprived NI communities leaving school with no qualifications will grow year on year.

    This debate must be about more than just narrow issues of ’selection’ and ’schooling’.  This is about wider education and personal development of our young people. Schools have an important role to play but more often than not I feel they simply reflect the prevailing local culture of/attitude to learning/development rather than shape it – and given the 80/20 split pointed out above that seems only fair and to be expected. But in partnership with community groups, parents and local/central government they can become the hubs of personal development that our small island economy/society will so desperately need if we are to prevail as a modern, inclusive and prosperous democracy in the end.

     

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , , ,

    No Comments

    Build it and they will come (maybe)

    It never (ever) ceases to amaze me that Field of Dreams was nominated for three Oscars.  Three. Oscars. Still there is no accounting for taste.  Lucky for Kevin K. Although I was a secret fan of Waterworld for years (good to get that out there).

    I’ve been thinking a lot recently about making operational change stick in Government and related to that the rise (and rise) of Social Media/Social Technology in Government or what is currently oft referred to as ‘Government 2.0‘.  I intend to dedicate my next few posts to that but for the purposes of a late night preamble it goes something like this…

    Reading some of the coverage on the application (or potential application) of Social Media/Technology one could easily come to the conclusion that this might be a panacea for the evils and short comings of modern Governance.  And while there is no doubt that new ’social technologies’ offer some exciting opportunities for Government including:

     

    •  Improved communication and cooperation (within and between governments and citizens)
    • Improved collaboration for service/solution co-production and participation with citizens (from participatory citizen voting, harnessing collective intelligence on matters of policy to the creation of new “Citizen centric” services built by the public using Government API data)
    • More efficient and effective options for service delivery/monitoring
    • Improved transparency and accountability (of decision making, accounting, voting, interests etc).

    But it is vital to remember that just “adopting” the tools and language of social media/technology in Government will simply not be enough because as Clay Shirky and may others have pointed out: 

    •  These technologies to do not in the main create new motivations, they are simply a means to enable existing motivations to be exercised more immediately and efficiently
    • This must ultimately be about a change in behaviour (not simply technology); a change in the way “we do things around here” (aka culture) and that sort of change is hard won and even harder sustained.

    Many public bodies and officials will need to change behaviors in a way that will be more significant and anathema than learning the difference between Facebook, Wordpress, Twitter and (as a starter for ten:) API.  How they communicate, legislate, consult, lead their staff and are held accountable will all be subject to significant change in a Government 2.0 operational landscape.

    More importantly however, if this is to mark a meaningful new era in governance we, as citizens, will need to change our behaviours dramatically. We are seeing record levels of political apathy reflected in (for example) falling political party membership and poor voter turn out. Yet inherent in the argument that social technologies can truly transform Government (stand up Government 2.0) today is the assumption that we have a public who are ready, willing and able to communicate and participate never mind collaborate and create!   Certainly there are many – I included – who can now more easily engage in ‘new ways of working’ with my Government or Local Council – see the wonderful “Us. Now” for more examples. There is a growing body of IT developers who are trying to use Government data to build and develop new services to improve the connection between Government and citizen e.g. MySociety

    But there are many – the majority most definitely – who either do not have the knowledge, means or inclination to do so…..”because these new technologies do not (in the main) create new motivations they simply enable existing motivations to be exercise more immediately and efficiently”.  We can design and put in place what I call “the enabling context” but will they come and will they be representative and responsible when they get there? Most pertinent in the context of citizen communication, participation and transactional service delivery is Martha Lane Fox’s observation at the NESTA “Reboot Britain” Event in July that 80% of government interactions are with the poorest 25% of people who are much less likely to be online. 

    If the promise of social media in Government is to be realised then we must still ask the question: how do we engage “the people” again in the design and delivery of Public Services and keep them engaged when we do get them there?  If we don’t then at best we’ll have an extremely unrepresentative channel of Gov 2.0 constituents and at worst we’ll have an increasingly disengaged and disenfranchised wider populace.  Some proponents state that the mere adoption of social media technologies in Government will drive that change in citizen engagement – particularly among younger voters – but I am not so sure it will do so en mass on its own…and some recent surveys (more here) bear out the fact that we have a ways to go both in engaging citizens in the process and machinery of Governance as well as demonstrating that Social Media has a role to play therein.

    Build it and they will come? Maybe (but I doubt it). Then again, apparently if I believe the impossible, the incredible can come true….

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , , ,

    No Comments

    Food Courts and happiness

    I love food. I love being happy (however rarely!). Food often equals happiness in my tiny mind. And therefore I sometimes love food courts but in the end they have become my idea of hell. Too much choice you see. Too much hot, steaming, accessible, processed, artificially lit goodness before my outstretched tray….

    I wasted an entire summer wandering around the Eaton Centre Food Court in Toronto in a daze in 1996, overwhelmed by the range of choice and the knowledge that whatever I chose…I’d really want something else, simply because something else would have been so much better. It was one of the few certainties in my then young, tanned if very uncertain life.

    I’ve always suffered really bad cognitive dissonance.  Post purchase, post getting dressed of a morning (does my bum look big in this?), post choosing a holiday destination, post project allocation, post food order.  It’s often crippling. What should I choose/have chosen? Did Ido the right thing? Maybe I should have? I’ll order one of each….crippling I tell you…

    When I was in India, a wonderful man I met in a random Chai shack in Jodphur told me: “Comparison is the death of happiness”.  It struck such a cord in me and it resonated with what something my Da - in a moment of uncharacteristic philosophical lucidity – said to me: “The problem with (your generation) is too much choice”.

    I knew what he meant (even though I denied this and called him a ludite still longing for the dark ages) but I could never reconcile all this intellectually. Surely choice can only be a good thing. Denied to so many, the ability to choose must be one of the great gifts that can be bestowed on society or an individual. I think of the limited range of choices available to my grandparents in rural early 1900’s Ireland (and even to an extent my parents). Surely we honour them through the range of choices available to us - a measure of any society or families economic and social progression?  And surely, a little comparison with the choices of others now and again does no harm does it? It can offer perspective and even inspiration on occasion.

    So why have I struggled for so long with these ideals of choice and its relation, comparison? And how can I do something about it?  Well, now I’m starting to get a sense for this thanks to a brilliant talk from Harvard Psychologist Dan Gilbert published via my favorite Internet resource outside the BBC: the incredible TED

    Dan Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, challenges the idea that we’ll always be miserable if we don’t get what we want. In fact he suggests that our “psychological immune system” can help us feel truly happy even when things don’t go as planned. His work on “happiness” hypothesises in a nutshell that:

    • Our expectations of how “happy” different outcomes/choices will make us are invariably wrong or overstated.  The long term impact on our happiness of making one choice over another is often imperceptible or completely negligible
    • This appears to be because there are two types of human happiness: natural and synthetic
    • Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted. Synthetic happiness is what we manufacture when we don’t get what we wanted
    • Synthetic happiness is just as real and enduring as the happiness we feel when we stumbleupon exactly what it is we wanted
    • We all have the potential to synthesize happiness but many of us seem either unaware or unable to do so
    • Freedom to choose is the friend of natural happiness – we all have the possibility to choose/realise what we want
    • However, freedom to choose is not conducive to manufacturing synthetic happiness which may be required if we don’t get what we want. People with a limited number of choices or irreversible choices can end up with a sense of equal or greater satisfaction than those in possession of real happiness in spite of which choice they make. The “irreversible condition” is the friend of synthetic happiness suggests Gilbert
    • However, those with a large number of choices available - or the opportunity to reverse choices already made - seem to find it much harder to synthesize happiness if necessary.

    It’s an interesting concept and of course, over 2500 years old if we agree that this principle of not overstating the perceived gap between the present and an imagined future; acceptance of/embracing what one has not what one might have had underpins the Zen Buddhist tradition (among others).

    There are some genuinely interesting considerations here for matters of Public Policy and for change management therein - particularly given the rise of the “freedom of choice for all citizens” agenda that has dominated so much of recent political debate in the UK and Western Society.  I was feeling a bit lightweight this evening to tackle it and anyway, Mr Schwarz is always so entertaining. Enjoy: “The Paradox of Choice”. I’ll revisit this in the future. I’m particularly interested in how this links to the simplification of Local and Central Government Services.

    But back to me…….until I can develop my own mindfulness, my own sense of self awareness and acceptance of the impermanence of all things (ideally) then I will need to improve my powers of synthesizing happiness (just in case I don’t get what I want again!). And to give myself a fighting chance I clearly need to bound my choices better. That may be hard in some aspects of life where choices are not possible to bound by the individual but there are many areas where this is possible. And food courts are my first stop on the road to finding synthetic food happiness. No more wrangling on noodles or chippie or curry or fried chicken or sushi or hot dog or burger or salad bar (ok, ok but it’s always a potential choice!) or pizza etc etc.  No more cold sweats, no more wasted time waiting from my long suffering friends, no need for them to order a back up dish for me, no more stop and search incidents as I arouse suspicion with my seemingly endless decision making loops of the options, no more disappointment as I realised on first bite that “I should/could have had…it would have been much better….”.

    And peace in the form of my very own slice of synthetic happiness shall descend; on a styrofoam food court tray. Amen.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    , , , ,

    2 Comments