The response below is a comment reposted with permission, from Jacob Harold of GuideStar.
...
David,
Very interesting to see this. As someone who is no longer involved in the core guidance (as it were) of Markets for Good, I can now only offer a few thoughts as a friend of the initiative:
· I’m glad to see this. In my mind, it’s the kind of friendly but frank engagement we need as a field.
· I absolutely hold onto constituency voice as a central principle of my own view of the future of social change – and, more, as a central piece of the Markets for Good vision…and, let’s hope, implementation at scale.
· But I use the indefinite pronoun “a” on purpose. On a personal level, I do not see CV as the “the” central principle – and never have (I don’t remember the 2010 agreement quite as you do). Civil society is simply too complicated and diverse for that.
· Our views of the world are all colored by our experience, and that is surely true for me. And I “grew up” professionally in the environmental movement. I can offer the too-easy argument that plants and animals can’t talk and so CV can’t apply in the same way to certain forms of public lands, ecosystem health, and biodiversity issues. But I know that’s a pat answer and it’s more complex than that: on issues with very long and complex causal chains (climate change being the archetypal example) CV simply doesn’t work as the central principle. It is absolutely critical as a central principle, but the truth is, the people being hurt are too far from the levers of power for CV to function as the core logic for social change strategy that’s actually usable by practitioners on the ground. Thus, it cannot function as the sole logic for the design of information systems for social change. (Climate isn’t alone on this; similar arguments can be made for macroeconomic policy, military interventions, global agricultural policy and other critical issues.)
· So, given that, I’d defend Markets for Good and say it is doing its best to represent the fundamental multi-dimensionality of social change strategy – with CV as one of, but not the only, absolutely essential elements of a future social change system that works better for the people, the communities, the ecosystems, and the ideals we all serve.
· The hope of technology is not just linear change, it is not merely an increase in efficiency in the current system (although I will note that, as complex systems science shows us, sometimes a linear increase in efficiency can have a nonlinear increase in impact!) The real hope is that technology facilitates new ways of thinking because it actually allows us to collect, display, and use (!) enough different kinds of information…that we can actually begin to approximate our rich and complex world. If I have anything to do with it, Constituency Voice will be right there in the center, but with all the other shades and dimensions of the strange and wonderful world of social change.
Jacob
[...] has been a whole season of pieces on the beneficiary feedback. One piece in particular – that of Mauricio Lim Miller of the Family Independence Initiative – tackles the central challenges head on. Maurice’s work models what it means to build a [...]
Text and Images are available under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Unported 3.0 License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Eric J. Henderson says:
The response below is a comment reposted with permission, from Jacob Harold of GuideStar. ... David, Very interesting to see this. As someone who is no longer involved in the core guidance (as it were) of Markets for Good, I can now only offer a few thoughts as a friend of the initiative: · I’m glad to see this. In my mind, it’s the kind of friendly but frank engagement we need as a field. · I absolutely hold onto constituency voice as a central principle of my own view of the future of social change – and, more, as a central piece of the Markets for Good vision…and, let’s hope, implementation at scale. · But I use the indefinite pronoun “a” on purpose. On a personal level, I do not see CV as the “the” central principle – and never have (I don’t remember the 2010 agreement quite as you do). Civil society is simply too complicated and diverse for that. · Our views of the world are all colored by our experience, and that is surely true for me. And I “grew up” professionally in the environmental movement. I can offer the too-easy argument that plants and animals can’t talk and so CV can’t apply in the same way to certain forms of public lands, ecosystem health, and biodiversity issues. But I know that’s a pat answer and it’s more complex than that: on issues with very long and complex causal chains (climate change being the archetypal example) CV simply doesn’t work as the central principle. It is absolutely critical as a central principle, but the truth is, the people being hurt are too far from the levers of power for CV to function as the core logic for social change strategy that’s actually usable by practitioners on the ground. Thus, it cannot function as the sole logic for the design of information systems for social change. (Climate isn’t alone on this; similar arguments can be made for macroeconomic policy, military interventions, global agricultural policy and other critical issues.) · So, given that, I’d defend Markets for Good and say it is doing its best to represent the fundamental multi-dimensionality of social change strategy – with CV as one of, but not the only, absolutely essential elements of a future social change system that works better for the people, the communities, the ecosystems, and the ideals we all serve. · The hope of technology is not just linear change, it is not merely an increase in efficiency in the current system (although I will note that, as complex systems science shows us, sometimes a linear increase in efficiency can have a nonlinear increase in impact!) The real hope is that technology facilitates new ways of thinking because it actually allows us to collect, display, and use (!) enough different kinds of information…that we can actually begin to approximate our rich and complex world. If I have anything to do with it, Constituency Voice will be right there in the center, but with all the other shades and dimensions of the strange and wonderful world of social change. JacobSpecial Topic: Markets For Good & Beneficiary Insight says:
[...] About [...]Special Topic: Markets For Good & Beneficiary Insight says:
[...] has been a whole season of pieces on the beneficiary feedback. One piece in particular – that of Mauricio Lim Miller of the Family Independence Initiative – tackles the central challenges head on. Maurice’s work models what it means to build a [...]