I had a great evening yesterday, in the company of twenty or so colleagues (is that the right word - see previous article!) from the Institute of Business Consulting of which I am a member because of my coaching and consultancy business. The occasion was the annual Chairman's Networking Dinner impressively hosted at Casani's French Bistro in Bath by our illustrious regional chairman, David Rigby, who has a real gift for these things. The enjoyable meal was interspersed by ten-minute speakers and there was the opportunity for much idle or deep and meaningful conversation.
I found myself talking to two people who, like me, have a significant background in Information Technology. The conversation with the person on my left was all about the problems of using computers today. This ranged from the way in which computer media or files from a decade or so ago cannot be read by today's computers, to how we are losing historical records because inks used for printing documents (and photographs) do not last well. I still intend to print out a lot of my digital photos to add to my traditional album - that may be necessary if my p.c. is wiped out by EMP or plagued by future incompatibility; but what is the point if the prints will not last? My conversationalist is still using a 35mm camera with traditional film.
After the main course I chatted to the person opposite me. Her work as a consultant focuses on helping teams of people in remote places to communicate with one another. She encourages the embracing of modern technology, taking people beyond mere web-conferencing to the on-line virtual world of Second Life. She sees such use of technology as essential in today's environmental crisis. She is the first person to have offered to help me sort out the wardrobe for my avatar. I have not accepted yet!
I am struck by the contrast between these two conversations.
I am very aware that as a personal and business coach I value working with people face to face: yet I use e-mail to arrange the appointments, and I am typing this on a computer now. It alarms me when I visit offices and see people glued unergonomically to their computer screens even to the exclusion of a lunch break.
It seems to me that in today's society we risk being turned into machines by the machines, that is to say we become dehumanised. What it means to be fully human is a bigger topic than I allow for in this one article however, as I attempt to think through the extent to which I should use automated e-mail newsletters (etc.) to promote my business, I feel that I first need to envision the way in which a healthy society makes use of technology, and be faithful to my vision. A challenge in Finding True North!
"Technology is a great servant, but a poor master." In times of technological change, and when "the market" wants us to adopt new technology for its profit, what values do we need to hold on to use technology to grow in our humanity rather than to be dehumanised?
I suspect that people have been asking similar questions since before the Atom Bomb, and maybe not enough during the Industrial Revolution. Paul Vallely impresses me with his writing, and I note his article in the Church Times of 6th November 2009. He comments on the row over the sacking of government scientific adviser David Nutt and concludes that the problem is not our contempt for science, but that scientists condescendingly do not (always) see that "science must be subjected to social values not be a substitute for them."
At a recent work-related gathering a friend(?) of mine made a comment along the lines that he knows who are his friends because they are the people with whom he socialises. By implication, people he works with are unlikely to be friends.
This set me thinking (yes, maybe I do too much of that!). Perhaps partly because of my ersthile by local role as a vicar, most of the people that I know, and may think of a friends, I have got to know through "work," or perhaps through a local club related to one of my hobbies, or some course of study. If I were to define my friends as only those I (just) socialise with (and what does that mean?) it would be a small bunch indeed.
I find myself wondering how technological and other changes have affected what it means to be a friend. A century or so ago, before the easy transport that we take for granted today, most people's friendship group would have been those in their local neighbourhood, and they would have got to know one another through living near to one another and attending the local school together. At the other extreme, today, a friend is someone I am unwilling to refuse access to my Facebook profile.
Changes in technology, transport, and access to university education, all make it easier to build geographically wider communities - of friends or at least acquaintances. The technology ranges from the telephone to e-mail to Second Life.
I could define friends as people who enjoy one another's company, without seeking gain from that. I could recognise friends as those who are there for me when I am in need, and I for them (yes, I recongise the Biblical alusions). So how important to friendship is physical presence (touch, or literally a shoulder to cry on)? Is the nature of friendship changing? If so, is that for better or for worse?
Following the retirement of our Team Rector, I find myself readjusting to leading church services, starting with the Remembrance Sunday service at St Bartholomew's Church today. This was a well attended service as usual, with plenty of military uniforms in sight, and Padre Andrew Cooper preached an impressive sermon. It was moving to see the number of wreaths laid at the war memorial by various local groups.
One of my daily readings this morning (from Celtic Daily Prayer) coincidentally spoke of the "worst curse" in some cultures of not being remembered, of having one's name struck out. This reinforced for me the importance of just the act of remembering, whatever else may take place.
On the other hand I'm interested in the construction of the word remember. Member. I think of this as a word for parts of the body. Re-member. Remembering must have something to do with putting things back together. What action flows from our acts of remembering? I'm reminded that in the Old Testament when God "remembers" this is not a reference to some thoughts He has, but a reference to action that He takes.
We've been working hard this weekend digging a hole for our new Green Cone, subsidised by Wiltshire Council. It does not look much, but much of it is buried underground: we had to dig a hole over 2 feet deep and about 3 feet in diameter.
We can put food scraps in the Green Cone, which will "digest" them and create just water which will drain into the soil. Impressive, huh? This saves filling our dustbin and landfill sites with food waste. We'll see how well it works.
We considered doing composting, which we did in our last house, but don't have a large garden and the composter equivalent to the green cone (the Green Johanna) requires balanced quantities of food waste and garden waste all year round, which would be a challenge.
At the Corsham Chamber of Commerce yesterday we listened to a fascinating speaker - Sue Wilkin from the local Trading Standards office. She deals with relationships between businesses and their consumers.
I thought I knew a fair bit about this, but some new regulations were brought in last year. I learned that:
It is now an offence for businesses to engage regularly in unfair commercial practices, such as refusing to replace faulty goods. Trading standards officers can now make use of the civil courts to deal with such businesses.
Traders who give quotes in the consumer's home for work to be done, such as replacing damaged roofing, have to offer a seven day cooling off period during which the consumer can change their mind.
Goods sold have to be sufficiently durable, so retailers do have an obligation to compensate consumers whose microwave ovens fail just after the guarantee period has ended! They cannot say, "You did not buy an extended warranty: go away!" (This is not new, this is from the Sale of Goods Act.)
E&OE. While I believe this information to be correct in English law, I take no responsibility for its accuracy or any consequencies if you rely upon it. Check it with authoritative sources such as aTrading Standards Office, Consumer Direct, or a lawyer.
At the weekend I found myself talking to someone out walking her dog. She was recovering from Swine Flu and lives not far from us.
She'd been diagnosed as having Swine Flu because of aching greater than that she'd experienced with 'flu before, and having started a course of Tamiflu recovered well and quickly.
I am thankful for the care that Toni has received at the (NHS) Royal United Hospital in Bath. The doctors and nursing staff have been encouraging, attentive, caring, sensitive, and thorough. Following a good operation and recovery Toni has been able to go home just 48 hours after her operation. Brilliant!
There are some interesting discussions going on about the development of faith in Europe. Grace Davie has pioneered research in this area and written books on the subject. She comments on the current discussion hosted by the Guardian.
Grace gives an overview there, but her comment that the church has an important role to play, but does not have control, seems central to me.
I write this because I have been pointed to a video on YouTube which draws attention to the changing demographics in Europe. It contends that Europe will be Muslim in a few years because of changes in birth rates. Clearly Europe, and Britain, are becoming increasingly multi-racial. According to the videobirth rates among "native Europeans" have dropped below a critical level which guarantees their extinction as a majority culture. It then predicts that Europe will become predominantly Muslim, as distinct from Christian and from the current trend towards secularism. This prediction seems fraught with hazardous assumptions, such as: immigrant communities will continue to have "higher birthrates," and that they will want to overthrow the culture that they are surrounded by rather than value it or develop it.
The video finishes with a "call to action" for Christians, but it seems intended to scare and to evoke a racist response in order to protect ("Christian") "civilisation as we know it." For this reason I do not find the seven minute video easy to watch, but here's the link to it.
What do I think, from a Christian viewpoint?
Firstly, it's no good being protectionist about our Christian culture, we need to do better. It has a lot of holes in it, as is shown at present by the scandal over the expenses of some Members of Parliament. The good news is that the public does care about such abuses, and has a sense of ideal morality to which it aspires.
Secondly, it is clear that our culture is changing and not static, we need to have an idea of the way that we would like our culture to develop, and live in a way that will bring it about. We need to be intentional about our own way of life and the development of society, not just "let it happen." As Gandhi put it, "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
Thirdly, the Bible does not set out a vision for a homogeneous Christian culture. On the contrary, it describes Christianity being lived out in different ways as it continues to spread through different cultures. It took courage and wisdom on the part of early church leaders to allow this. Healthy church growth has worked for its culture, and needs to be culturally and racially diverse.
So, finally, let's build a Godly society in which the teachings of Jesus are alive, expect it to be culturally (and racially) diverse and to benefit from those varied expressions, and don't expect to control the way it happens!
I have some sympathy for the MP's at the centre of the current row over their expenses. Many of us have joined a new organisation and received induction training about the process for reclaiming expenses. I wonder how many of us have chosen not to claim all that we were allowed to?
On the other hand, I find it incredible that expenses payments have been made to MP's for interest costs of housing loans (mortgages) that do not exist. I assume that these amounts, thousands of pounds, were reimbursed without sight of any receipts. Would you reimburse expenses in that way? So I wonder whether the system is more at fault than the individuals, and believe that it is right for the Speaker of the House of Commons to resign as he is accountable for this. Some of the claims appear to me to be theft, so shouldn't the police be taking a look at those?
There is clamour for an independent body to be responsible for reimbursing MP's expenses in the future. Yet how is it possible to set up an independent body that is not accountable to Parliament? Maybe Her Majesty should be getting more involved!
I note that leaders of the political parties want to oust those who have "broken the rules," yet the rules themselves are unsound, and the MP's collectively are responsible for those rules. In this there are levels of penitence. As a start we have MP's who (in effect) apologise because they have been caught, then there are those who recognise that they should not break rules, but what about bigger moral concepts that people have betrayed trust, been dishonest, and that right and wrong are not all about obeying rules?
As founder of much of the culture that supposedly underpins our democracy, surely Jesus would turn in his grave (if he were still there), but at least as a society we do care when such abuses are brought into the light.
Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said yesterday that the economy would take time to heal.
Surely, as a system, the economy is fine. It is reacting sensibly to some people who have done some unwise things. So the economy does not need healing, but some people may need healing, including those who have been victims of the greed of others.
Philip Whyte, a guest columnist in the Times, is seeking to lay to rest the myth that Britain's manufacturing base has shrunk. This interests me because with an engineering background I enjoy manuafacturing, and also because recent "Credit Crunch" events should discourage us from being overly reliant on the finance sector.
He writes that manufacturing in Britain forms a larger proportion of GDP than in France of the USA, and that - before the recent recession - our industrial output was higher than ever. So, our industry has grown, but services have grown more, he writes.
It's good to see British women doing well in the Vendée Globe again. Ellen MacArthur preceded her impressive round the world voyage with a Vendée Globe success.
Sam Davies completed the coure in ninety five days and impressed people by not moaning about hardships but marvelling at the beauty of the natural world. "It sounds strange, but it was easy," she said. "It felt as I was doing something normal." It sounds like she was 'in the zone!'
She was closely followed by Dee Caffari who thus became the first woman to sail solo around the world non-stop in both directions, despite having a broken sail.
Following a couple of earlier articles about God getting a mention (here and here) it's interesting to read that Tony Blair is enjoying his new found freedom from British public office to invoke God's blessing.
Perhaps because he wanted to, but was purportedly prevented from, ending a speech with "God bless the British people" he has been first among British leaders to meet new president Barack Obama at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in the U.S.A. He finished his speech there with: "By the way, God bless you all."
It is curious that a short trip across the Atlantic Ocean allows things unsaid to be said. It is Grace Davie, Professor of Sociology at Exeter University, who has written particularly about the unique secularism of Western Europe. I wonder whether, if we become increasingly entrenched in this, we may find it increasingly difficult to relate to the other 95% of the world's population.
According to David Miliband, UK Foreign Secretary, we have not been using the phrase "war on terror" for the last few years, and now that President Bush (who invented the term) is retiring we are able to say so.
We are now seeing that the right response is to recognise the diversity of disparate terrorist groups and seeing that the right response to the threat is "to champion law and human rights - not subordinate it" and to seek to win through gaining international co-operation.
This sounds good to me: better to aim towards something good and tangible, than away from something we don't like. It's more likely to work! Furthermore, the only way to fight terror is not with weapons but by not being fearful. As President Franklin D Roosevelt put it in his inaugural address in 1933, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." (Feel free to search this blog for my other thoughts on "fear.")
As we move into the start of a New Year when much seems unknown and uncertain, I find myself reminded of words used by King George VI on Christmas Day 1939.
In the meantime I feel that we may all find a message of encouragement in the lines which, in my closing words, I would like to say to you:I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year, "Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown." And he replied, "Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light, and safer than a known way."
May that Almighty Hand guide and uphold us all.
The quote he used, by Bristol author Minnie Louise Haskins, has often been requoted since - even though the rest of her poem seems difficult to find - probably because it is so evocative. I find that it resonates within me as I look out into our present circumstances.
The context of the speech was the King seeking to encourage his people shortly after Britain and France had declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. Since I can imagine that this must have been one of the scarier moments in British history, perhaps we should appropriate its imagery and encouragement now.
If you mention "Prosperity Gospel" Christians will usually react badly, and perhaps they should because of the teaching of those who seem to think that Christianity is all about financial wealth. On the other hand I could say that the Bible is all about prosperity, in the sense that prosperity is about health and wellbeing - individual and corporate - in the broadest sense.
While not believing that being Christian necessarily results in financial wealth, there are Christian teachings which if followed are likely to result in a growth in wealth and prosperity for the whole community. One of these is the encouragement to be trustworthy and to seek to trust others. This is mentioned specificaly, and also encompassed in "Do to others as you would like them to do to you." The reason for this is that trust is necessary for trade to thrive, which is presumably why "my word is my bond" was once the motto successfully lived out by the City of London.
So it is with considerable sadness that I see greed and a lack of trust as underlying recent financial collapses (the "credit crunch"). As another example, I have heard of local farmers (in the UK) who have agreed prices for the sale of their grain to one of the trading at a certain time in the future. The price of grain has dropped and the traders seek to renege on their contracts as it will be difficult for them to sell on the grain. Of course they would not worry if their sale prices had gone up.
Trust takes time to build, and can be easily damaged. Perhaps the most important thing the business community can seek to do at the moment is to build trust, through being trustworthy. This is about a focus on relationships, not on solving a "financial problem."
Interestingly, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey speaks of the importance of trust, and how we need to start to build that by keeping the promises that we make to ourselves (individually). As is so often the case, we need to start with ourselves.
From time to time I receive newsletters from Revd Dr Clifford Hill, of C&M Ministries Trust, Moggerhanger Park, Bedfordshire. Formerly he was a pastor in East London, and has a challenging prophetic ministry drawing on his learning as a sociologist (it is in sociology that he has a PhD). He's written some interesting books, and he sees that much of what he foresaw is now coming to pass.
His latest newsletter draws attention to the way sociologists recognise five major social institutions, and that there is an invariable rule that when significant change takes place in any one of the five, all others are affected. They are:
The Economy
The Family
Education
Law and government
Religion
He speaks of how all these except the economy have undergone major change since the 1960's so today's financial problems were predictable. Since this is the result of a domino-effect to do with changing values, a solution based on just addressing financial issues will not be suffiicient. The full article is worth reading here. His home page here.
A while ago I wrote about leg room on Monarch Airlines flights. They wrote back to me on 8th December, in reply to my letter of 3rd September. They had acknowledged my letter, but it has taken them longer than they said they hoped (eight weeks I think they said) to reply to my letter.
I had commented that the leg room available seemed inadequate, and there seemed to be no system in place to ensure that the taller people who needed it had preferential access to the limited number of seats with more leg room. In their reply they don't seem to acknowledge the need, just to say they are "in line with the majority of UK carriers" and complying to "CAA and manufacturer's guidelines" and CAA "rigid safety criteria." What safety? I contend that a significant proportion of the population would find it physically impossible to adopt the advocated "brace position" in an emergency in the amount of space provided.
It saddens me when a company's idea of creativity and customer service is limited to not contravening rules and regulations and being in line with the "majority of" others who are presumably similarly unimaginative.
I suppose it had to happen sooner or later. Following the advice of a friend I have tried on-line shopping - from Sainsbury's as that is where we usually shop.
I found it easier than I expected as I was able to find groceries by typing in a shopping list, choosing "aisles" or using a find facility. It remembers my orders for next time to make the next order easier. Somehow it seems more exciting when the goods just arrive at the door.
They were a bit late, so I gained a £10 voucher. Then we gained another one when they had to make a second trip to deliver omitted wine!
It's good that people continue to wonder about God, although what he thinks about us may be more important than what we think about him.
The British Humanist Association are the latest in the line-up to give God some publicity, according to a BBC News report. Aided by Prof Richard Dawkins they plan to run a poster campaign on London buses in January with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
This is described as the Atheist Bus Campaign, and atheists don't believe in God - right? Yet unable to say, "God does not exist," they usethe motto above. I can only conclude that they're concerned that God may exist, and fearful of how he may react if they say he doesn't. This is despite the BHA's headline on its web site that "the humanist view of life is progressive and optimistic, in awe of human potential, living without fear of judgement and death." I'm not sure they've arrived yet, and I also find myself wondering whether God has an even bigger view of human potential than we humans ourselves do.
I am happy to announce that I do enjoy life, in the knowledge that God is very much alive!
This week I've been seeking to do more sales and marketing for the firm, which has included trying out networking meetings (with interesting speakers but we'll have to see how much business comes), and seeking to register with Train To Gain for their new Leadership and Management Advisory Service. The idea is that they will give grants to small businesses and charities to encourage top leaders to receive training - which may include coaching.
The idea is that as well as funding they connect clients and suppliers through their skill brokers. What seems strange to me is that it is very difficult to work out from their web site how to register as a provider, and when I phoned to find out I ended up following a chain of about six phone numbers that threatened to take me back to the one I started with. (In the end I did connect with a director, who knew what she was talking about.)
Maybe it's my fault for imagining that the process would be quick.
I enjoy looking at the BBC news website. There seems to be a curious mixture of the news everyone is talking about and random information. The latest piece of random information is the exciting news that if you are middle aged (or older) blogging is good for you, maybe even better than doing the Times Crossword. Take a look.
On the more general subject of intelligence, I've been reminded that it's not that simple - with IQ, EQ, and SQ. Different people have different perspectives, and it seems to me that much of what we call education encourages people to be numerate, literate etc. (all of which are important); these people see themselves as intelligent (which is true); and are often looked to in times of crisis ahead of those with other kinds of intelligence.
However, to give an example of the current "Credit Crunch" the intelligensia are number crunching to solve the economic problem (IQ), and it is important, but are they in touch with how the population are feeling (EQ) and their perspectives (EQ and IQ) to be able to communicate and motivate effectively? Are they, and all of us, in touch with what is most important (this is about values too) and have the strength of character to win out (largely all about SQ)?
My latest upset is Barclays Bank. Some years ago they closed down lots of branches in "small towns" including the one I live in. (Other banks did the same.) The main irritation of this to many people is the difficulty of paying in cheques. Once upon a time, when we lived a long way from a bank, Barclays gave us prepaid envelopes to do this. After a while they refused to do that anymore. Anyway, to lessen the blow to rural communities, they agreed to allow cheques to be paid in at Post Offices. This is useful, supports local Post Offices too (that's nice, because I'm not sure that the government want to support this useful social service) and - unsurprisingly - you have to obtain special envelopes to do this.
What happens if you keep ordering them and they do not arrive? Then you can't use the service anymore.
The system is that you phone a free number and get put through to a helpful person in Mumbai (I have nothing against that in principle.) He asks you for your address which he writes down and then faxes to an office in Britain. The office in Britain then posts the envelopes to my home. This seems a complicated system. Why not just use an online portal that automatically prints out the shipping documents? Why not use e-mail rather than fax?
When I phoned the same number and asked what the procedure was if the system worked, the reply was, "I can only send a fax." So he sent another fax, and the envelopes did not arrive again. Why should they? (Einstein quote!).
When I spoke to UK customer services on the phone, they said they could not help me as they had no "procedure" to do so. Helpfully the lady took ownership of the problem and phoned the same number to ask for some envelopes for me. She had to wait about quarter of an hour in the queuing system.
I'm sure you will await the next instalment with excitement!
I still have not heard from Monarch Airlines, after I wrote to them.
On a brighter note, when I made the effort to chat to my local councillors about some things that were winding me up, I started to understand their problems more, and feel that they are now more in touch with the needs of those they seek to serve. I am impressed by the dedication of people who serve as local councillors, often doing it pretty much full time without a salary.
I write as I reflect on dramatic stock market falls today, remembering newspaper headlines a few weeks ago which asked whether capitalism was collapsing.
When the Berlin wall collapsed in 1989 I remember people celebrating the collapse of communism, and I wondered what was so special about another "ism" - capitalism - that gave it the divine right to exist, as if it were flawless.
I can understand that banks may borrow money from some people to lend to others, and profit from the difference between interest rates. I can understand that a firm may want people to invest in it, and that the investor should receive regular income from dividends in return. I can understand the sense of creating a market for the trading of those stocks. What I cannot undersand is how it makes sense to seek to make money just from the short term buying and selling of those stocks in a way that seems little different from gambling.
Somewhere there is a boundary between sane and ethical investment, and the insane and unethical of the current trading of stocks (and perhaps commodities too). We need to identify that boundary and return to the correct side of it. The recent banning of "selling short" may be a move in the right direction, but probably not far enough.
This was the subtitle of a day by Revd Steve Chalke MBE entitled "Intimacy and Involvement" at Gloucester Cathedral yesterday. It was organised by the Spirituality Network for Gloucestershire. I was attracted to attend the day because of the reference in his title to Jesus' summary of the (Jewish) law - love God and love your neighbour as yourself - which seems to me to be about as good as it gets in any summary of how to live your life intelligently.
I'm not quite sure what I expected from the day, but usually days organised by Spirituality networks are "Quiet Days" and have a few short talks with lots of space for reflection. However this day involved a lot of listening to Steve (and he is an entertaining speaker) with a bit of group work so we could think about what we might do differently in Gloucester. (Someone pointed out that they were not from Gloucester but Gloucestershire, and I am from neither!) Steve's main point was that during the 20th century, partly because of the state takeover of social security and health care, the church became kind of ghetto of piety instead of being actively engaged in society. So maybe it was appropriate for him to attempt a more action-oriented day. Steve's own response to his own beliefs has been to set up various charities to help build community through schools, hostels, and medical care (Oasis Trust), encourage social action among churches (Faithworks) and now to fight against people trafficking (Stop the traffik).
He made many references to the Torah to make the point that the whole of life should be worship and the family at the centre of it, and not just some time in a church building on a Sunday. He movingly recounted how a Jewish friend, when asked where the worship happened in the sabbath meal, talked of how everything was worship from the hugs to the eating to the conversation. Yes, life should be worship, and there's not much to a religious faith that does not issue in action. However I felt that although his comments were informative and persuasive, his failiure to value the pietistic side of church life gave his comments a lack of balance. Maybe that was the stance he needed to take to encourage us to become more active!
I continue to be attracted by the balanced way in which the Cursillo movement encourages Christians to view their life by looking at piety, study, and action.
I learned some interesting things to do with Jesus' summary of the law, which gives new significanct to Jesus' comments about his yoke being light (Matthew 11:29), the way he invited disciples by saying "follow me" (Matthew 4:19 et al), and references to his authority (Matthew 7:29 et al).
According to Steve, Jewish rabbis (teachers) would be approached by men who wanted to be disciples. If they showed that they knew the scriptures, then they would be accepted by the rabbi with the words "follow me." The disciple knew the scriptures, so what he was to learn was the rabbi's particular interpretation. This was called their yoke. The way in which the teaching of the rabbi was passed on through the generations was through his disciples who were trained for three years and then became rabbis themselves. Some rabbi's passed on the yoke that they had received. Others developed their own interpretation and were said to speak with authority - so this phrase in the Bible is a technical term. When Jesus summarised the law he said (Matthew 22:37-40)
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments
The two parts of this were well known quotes from the scriptures, he says, however it was a new innovation by Jesus to pair them in this way.
Today I found myself wondering why I don't talk to my local councillor or MP about the things that I do not feel are right in our local area. Reflecting on this, I decided that it is because something in me does not believe that they can make a difference. So feeling that they are powerless, I allow myself to feel powerless too. Our local MP is a Conservative; we have a Labour Government. In these days when democracy in England seems to be about the Prime Minister telling MP's in his party how to vote, rather than ordinary MP's exercising collective influence, I am right to wonder how much influence an MP has - particularly one who is not in the ruling party. Reflecting further, it seems to me that my belief about powerlessness may be wrong, but that even if the belief is correct it is not helpful to accept it!
As I talk to people, it seems that many share a view that they can have little influence on the society that they live in. For example some think that the only influence they have on the world of politics is through voting in a General Election every five years or so. So we seem to have a culture of powerlessness.
If people feel powerless, who do they think calls the shots? As Margaret Mead, anthropologist, wrote: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Is she right?
The Bible develops a similar theme: "For God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self control." (2 Timothy 1:7)
I find Stephen Covey helpful on this to, as he writes in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People about how we are concerned about many things, but need to focus on those which we can influence. He says this will not only result in us having influence in those areas, but discovering that the number of areas in which we have influence will grow. This contrasts with the common habit of moaning about things which we don't think we can do anything about!
One of the strengths of coaching, which I do, is that it leads people to discover the action that they can take to bring about the changes that they want.
So, I've decided not to collude with a culture of powerlessness.
Isn't it great when someone writes a really clever and incisive letter to a newspaper?
Miss Christine Gilbert recently said that schools were let down by too many satisfactory teachers. This resulted in a letter to the Telegraph from Nicholas Bielby of Bradford (which I read in The Week today).
He writes that just as everybody cannot be above average, a good system works with satisfactory people performing satisfactorily - producing good-enough outcomes. There is something wrong with the system if it only works with excellent staff.
Apparently "thinkers and politicians across the political spectrum are now trying to revive "character-talk" according to Richard Reeves in Prospect magazine (U.K.)
He writes that Baden Powell, founder of the Scouts, saw the movement as a character factory, and that the first headmaster of Stowe school, sought to turn out men whou would be "acceptable at a dance and invaluable at a shipwreck."
Is this the key to "resolving such vexed issues as obesity, welfare reform and social immobility"? politicians wonder.
Naomi Klein, famous for her book No Logo, has written another challenging piece called Shock Doctrine.
Go to her web site to find out more, and watch the short (six minute) film which summarises her important points, graphically.
She notes that following national and international catastrophes immediate changes are often, and that the general public is both amenable to this and expects change. What happens if leaders are unscrupulous, and the changes made have little to do with the event that has just happened, but instead they seek to use the opportunity to advance their own agendas?
This is what she explores, and it is fascinating. I have long felt that "gut-reactions" after major events can seem to "lose the plot" in ignoring the deeper priorities or values of society. For example action taken in fear of terrorism often restricts the freedom of the general population: values such as liberty and free speech should not be given away easily. The hope is that in a healthy society there will be a time of review of "emergency measures" when society reviews the deeper issues and appropriate adjustments can be made.
So Naomi develops this further, even wondering whether theory and practice of free market economics is not so much something that is for the public good as oppressive practice brought in by these methods. While I agree with her principles, or "doctrine," I'm not yet sure whether I fully agree with the way she applies it to the world of economics - but I haven't read the book yet. (It's logical, but are people really that unscrupulous?)
Go to her web site to find out more, and watch the short (six minute) film which summarises her important points, graphically.
