To what extent can the Transition movement be successful?
Success in transitioning to a post peak oil world and an unstable and changed climate is critical. I really appreciated the following article and thought that others might too. The list of critical success factors are listed first - the article in it's entirety follows.
(Thanks, David)
This is from Tom Atlee. He runs a site/organization called Co-Intelligence:
I suspect the Transition movement will succeed to the extent it does
the following:
a. It holds gatherings that are as ritual-neutral as possible
that help people connect in functional groups that actively respect
diversity and redundancy even when it seems questionable to them
(which the Open Space approach does) AND
b. encourages people to create sub-culture clusters WITHIN the
movement where like-minded souls can use their familiar rituals, and
those who don't want to pray or hold hands or pledge allegiance or
work for consensus don't have to, with everyone honoring (or at least
tolerating) each other doing their own things in their own groups.
c. It actively recruits "bridge builders" and "diplomats" to
assist the co-existence and cross-fertilization of different sub-
cultures drawn into the movement, and develops such roles as key
elements in the Transition program.
d. It proudly flaunts its diversity as proof of the importance
of its work (see "Circles and Dress Codes"
intelligence.org/S-pcmrchcircle.html> for a story of how the Great
Peace March came to use its conservatives and punks together to
spotlight their shared concern about nuclear disarmament).
e. It provides community activities like well-designed street
parties, potlucks or concerts (see the reference to Willie Nelson in
the article) to build a mutual sense of common humanity.
And, in the big picture, no matter how inclusive it tries to be, the
Transition movement is only one of thousands of efforts operating on
different beliefs about our shared Tomorrow. They are on a leading
edge and their rapid expansion suggests there is a hot "market" for
working together in the face of challenges. What other approaches
can we try? The very existence of the Transition movement challenges
the rest of us: How far can we go with the belief that our
differences are our greatest strength and using them creatively is
our greatest challenge?
Tom Atlee
Dear friends,
I am amazed at the article below -- not only because it brings the Transition movement into the mainstream New York Times, but because of its breadth of understanding and perspective.
While I share the Transition movement's belief that converging crises present a monumental challenge and opportunity, I also know "there's more to it than that." In any complex adaptive system like a society, we cannot predict with any certainty what will unfold. The complexity is too dense and unpredictable "wild cards" are too likely. What does "being prepared" mean when you don't know what's going to happen?
One of the most remarkable aspects of a self-organizing, resilient system is its mix of redundancy and diversity -- lots of people and organizations serving the same function in different ways. This mimics the diversity that drives the evolutionary process of natural selection: Many are called and the most 'fit' are chosen by the dynamics of life. (This is the underlying life-supporting dynamic of markets. The destructive nature of modern markets is not that they're competitive, but that they are governed too much by financial capital at the expense of social and natural capital.)
When "business-as-usual" seems to be working, the mainstream (status quo) dominates and alternatives are marginalized on the fringes of society. When "business-as-usual" begins to bend and crack at the weak points, alternatives begin to expand and spread into the cracks. When "business-as-usual" collapses, alteratives swarm into what was once "mainstream" space and compete for which will become the next "mainstream."
This is a pattern as old as life, and definitely has its cultural parallels in the rise and fall of empires, businesses, technologies, ideas.
But we are in a radically new era and there is a new possibility: Among the alternatives being born are initiatives that attempt to embrace a broad spectrum of diverse alternatives WITHIN ONE STORY -- within one cooperative or self-organizing enterprise. One of the most powerful principles upon which to build such an enterprise is the understanding that resilience COMES FROM diversity and redundancy. Based on that understanding, such an effort would not push one agenda but rather make space for many approaches to co-exist, thrive, and interact creatively.
The Transition movement is one of the most remarkable of such current experiments. At its best, it creates space -- often Open Space gatherings -- in which EVERYONE working on improving local food security (and other necessary community functions) can learn from each other, coordinate, and create new collaborations. They don't ALL have to do organic gardening.
And therein lies the dynamic tension which drives the Transition movement to break new ground in social organization. It invites people to do what they are passionate about, which tends to split people off into groups of like mind, fragmenting the movement. On the other hand, it invites people into a common vision with a common project of creating a common plan, which tends to bring people together. This tension between divergence and convergence is apparent within the article below and also in a major Transition Town initiative I recently visited.
Can hippy environmentalists, conservative traditionalists, businesspeople, government officials, lovers of technology and all sorts of ordinary folks work together to help their local communities make a transition from oil-based global growth economies to resilient local economies based on people's connections to each other and the natural world? There is a natural tendency for many in the consciously alternative environmentalist subculture to split off and do their own thing, for local economics fits comfortably with their back-to-the-land, voluntary simplicity impulses. On the other hand, the Transition movement is designed to pull diverse people together -- including people from government and business sectors -- so some Transitioners are focusing on that and bewailing the emerging hippy reputation of their movement.
I suspect the Transition movement will succeed to the extent it does the following:
a. It holds gatherings that are as ritual-neutral as possible that help people connect in functional groups that actively respect diversity and redundancy even when it seems questionable to them (which the Open Space approach does) AND
b. encourages people to create sub-culture clusters WITHIN the movement where like-minded souls can use their familiar rituals, and those who don't want to pray or hold hands or pledge allegiance or work for consensus don't have to, with everyone honoring (or at least tolerating) each other doing their own things in their own groups.
c. It actively recruits "bridge builders" and "diplomats" to assist the co-existence and cross-fertilization of different sub-cultures drawn into the movement, and develops such roles as key elements in the Transition program.
d. It proudly flaunts its diversity as proof of the importance of its work (see "Circles and Dress Codes" for a story of how the Great Peace March came to use its conservatives and punks together to spotlight their shared concern about nuclear disarmament).
e. It provides community activities like well-designed street parties, potlucks or concerts (see the reference to Willie Nelson in the article) to build a mutual sense of common humanity.
And, in the big picture, no matter how inclusive it tries to be, the Transition movement is only one of thousands of efforts operating on different beliefs about our shared Tomorrow. They are on a leading edge and their rapid expansion suggests there is a hot "market" for working together in the face of challenges. What other approaches can we try? The very existence of the Transition movement challenges the rest of us: How far can we go with the belief that our differences are our greatest strength and using them creatively is our greatest challenge?
Because, whatever happens,
We are All.
In This.
Together.
Coheartedly,
Tom
(Thanks, David)
This is from Tom Atlee. He runs a site/organization called Co-Intelligence:
I suspect the Transition movement will succeed to the extent it does
the following:
a. It holds gatherings that are as ritual-neutral as possible
that help people connect in functional groups that actively respect
diversity and redundancy even when it seems questionable to them
(which the Open Space approach does) AND
b. encourages people to create sub-culture clusters WITHIN the
movement where like-minded souls can use their familiar rituals, and
those who don't want to pray or hold hands or pledge allegiance or
work for consensus don't have to, with everyone honoring (or at least
tolerating) each other doing their own things in their own groups.
c. It actively recruits "bridge builders" and "diplomats" to
assist the co-existence and cross-fertilization of different sub-
cultures drawn into the movement, and develops such roles as key
elements in the Transition program.
d. It proudly flaunts its diversity as proof of the importance
of its work (see "Circles and Dress Codes"
intelligence.org/S-pcmrchcircle.html> for a story of how the Great
Peace March came to use its conservatives and punks together to
spotlight their shared concern about nuclear disarmament).
e. It provides community activities like well-designed street
parties, potlucks or concerts (see the reference to Willie Nelson in
the article) to build a mutual sense of common humanity.
And, in the big picture, no matter how inclusive it tries to be, the
Transition movement is only one of thousands of efforts operating on
different beliefs about our shared Tomorrow. They are on a leading
edge and their rapid expansion suggests there is a hot "market" for
working together in the face of challenges. What other approaches
can we try? The very existence of the Transition movement challenges
the rest of us: How far can we go with the belief that our
differences are our greatest strength and using them creatively is
our greatest challenge?
Tom Atlee
Dear friends,
I am amazed at the article below -- not only because it brings the Transition movement into the mainstream New York Times, but because of its breadth of understanding and perspective.
While I share the Transition movement's belief that converging crises present a monumental challenge and opportunity, I also know "there's more to it than that." In any complex adaptive system like a society, we cannot predict with any certainty what will unfold. The complexity is too dense and unpredictable "wild cards" are too likely. What does "being prepared" mean when you don't know what's going to happen?
One of the most remarkable aspects of a self-organizing, resilient system is its mix of redundancy and diversity -- lots of people and organizations serving the same function in different ways. This mimics the diversity that drives the evolutionary process of natural selection: Many are called and the most 'fit' are chosen by the dynamics of life. (This is the underlying life-supporting dynamic of markets. The destructive nature of modern markets is not that they're competitive, but that they are governed too much by financial capital at the expense of social and natural capital.)
When "business-as-usual" seems to be working, the mainstream (status quo) dominates and alternatives are marginalized on the fringes of society. When "business-as-usual" begins to bend and crack at the weak points, alternatives begin to expand and spread into the cracks. When "business-as-usual" collapses, alteratives swarm into what was once "mainstream" space and compete for which will become the next "mainstream."
This is a pattern as old as life, and definitely has its cultural parallels in the rise and fall of empires, businesses, technologies, ideas.
But we are in a radically new era and there is a new possibility: Among the alternatives being born are initiatives that attempt to embrace a broad spectrum of diverse alternatives WITHIN ONE STORY -- within one cooperative or self-organizing enterprise. One of the most powerful principles upon which to build such an enterprise is the understanding that resilience COMES FROM diversity and redundancy. Based on that understanding, such an effort would not push one agenda but rather make space for many approaches to co-exist, thrive, and interact creatively.
The Transition movement is one of the most remarkable of such current experiments. At its best, it creates space -- often Open Space gatherings -- in which EVERYONE working on improving local food security (and other necessary community functions) can learn from each other, coordinate, and create new collaborations. They don't ALL have to do organic gardening.
And therein lies the dynamic tension which drives the Transition movement to break new ground in social organization. It invites people to do what they are passionate about, which tends to split people off into groups of like mind, fragmenting the movement. On the other hand, it invites people into a common vision with a common project of creating a common plan, which tends to bring people together. This tension between divergence and convergence is apparent within the article below and also in a major Transition Town initiative I recently visited.
Can hippy environmentalists, conservative traditionalists, businesspeople, government officials, lovers of technology and all sorts of ordinary folks work together to help their local communities make a transition from oil-based global growth economies to resilient local economies based on people's connections to each other and the natural world? There is a natural tendency for many in the consciously alternative environmentalist subculture to split off and do their own thing, for local economics fits comfortably with their back-to-the-land, voluntary simplicity impulses. On the other hand, the Transition movement is designed to pull diverse people together -- including people from government and business sectors -- so some Transitioners are focusing on that and bewailing the emerging hippy reputation of their movement.
I suspect the Transition movement will succeed to the extent it does the following:
a. It holds gatherings that are as ritual-neutral as possible that help people connect in functional groups that actively respect diversity and redundancy even when it seems questionable to them (which the Open Space approach does) AND
b. encourages people to create sub-culture clusters WITHIN the movement where like-minded souls can use their familiar rituals, and those who don't want to pray or hold hands or pledge allegiance or work for consensus don't have to, with everyone honoring (or at least tolerating) each other doing their own things in their own groups.
c. It actively recruits "bridge builders" and "diplomats" to assist the co-existence and cross-fertilization of different sub-cultures drawn into the movement, and develops such roles as key elements in the Transition program.
d. It proudly flaunts its diversity as proof of the importance of its work (see "Circles and Dress Codes" for a story of how the Great Peace March came to use its conservatives and punks together to spotlight their shared concern about nuclear disarmament).
e. It provides community activities like well-designed street parties, potlucks or concerts (see the reference to Willie Nelson in the article) to build a mutual sense of common humanity.
And, in the big picture, no matter how inclusive it tries to be, the Transition movement is only one of thousands of efforts operating on different beliefs about our shared Tomorrow. They are on a leading edge and their rapid expansion suggests there is a hot "market" for working together in the face of challenges. What other approaches can we try? The very existence of the Transition movement challenges the rest of us: How far can we go with the belief that our differences are our greatest strength and using them creatively is our greatest challenge?
Because, whatever happens,
We are All.
In This.
Together.
Coheartedly,
Tom
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David MacLeod on
-
Thanks Cindi for sharing this with the TW readership here.
It should be pointed out that the article Tom Atlee refers to is from the New York Times Magazine: "The End Is Near (Yay!).
Rob Hopkins gives a brief rundown of the 3 major articles about Transition that came out this weekend (A Weekend of In-Depth Transition Coverage):
"The first was a 5,000 word piece in the New York Times’ Green Issue called The End is Nigh (yay!) by Jon Mooallem. Although parts of it make my toes curl, it is, overall, a fascinating piece, focusing mostly on Transition Sandpoint, and how the process is going there. Amazing to get such in depth coverage in such a publication, and a huge boost to the work of Transition US (check out their new website, and a short ‘welcome’ film I did for them recently).
The second was in, of all places, Elle magazine. Entitled Do Worry Be Happy, it looks at the psychology of Transition, and is a piece based on the journalist’s immersing herself in Transition. A very positive piece, although after my delight at a recent piece on Canada’s CBC describing me as “a thin man in his late 30s’, I was less enamoured with this piece referring to me as “an adorable looking English academic with jug ears”. Great piece though.
My favourite of the three was in the Sunday Times, and was by old friend of Transition and Transition Belsize activist John Paul Flintoff, entitled Why we forgot how to grow food. A rip-roaring stomp through John-Paul’s allotment, cycling round Brixton with Duncan Law looking for windfalls, and getting his neighbours gardening, it somehow captures the spirit of Transition more than the other two."
Also, Asher Miller, of the Post Carbon Institute has in interesting reaction to the NYT article, entitled "The Schizophrenic Dance of Hope & Fear." Extended quote:
"In this weekend's New York Times Magazine, there's a lengthy article on the relatively recent arrival of the Transition Town movement to the United States, focusing on organizing efforts in the small, town of Sandpoint, in the very northern tip of Idaho. (Full disclosure: I sit on the board of Transition US, the support arm for transition efforts in the United States, and Post Carbon Institute is a close partner of the organization.)
The journalist, who interviewed Richard Heinberg and me together back in February, spent several months working on the piece--traveling to Sand Point a couple of times and interviewing a number of people working on the local, national, and international levels.
Unfortunately, he got a lot wrong, starting with the title: "The End Is Near (Yay!)." Through my work, I've spoken with a lot of people who are concerned about Peak Oil and climate change and not a single one of them--not even those who reject our current way of life--ever said "yay" at the prospect of what's to come.
The article attempted to portray the larger network as somehow corporate:
At the Panida, the keynote speaker was Michael Brownlee, the director of the Transition effort in Boulder and a representative of Transition U.S. — an even newer group that is forming to help the movement spread in America. He was like the Transition equivalent of a middle manager flown in from corporate.
This despite a later statement that "Transition insists that initiatives be completely bottom-up organizations. There’s no central oversight, and the movement is expected to evolve slightly differently wherever it springs up."
I just had to wonder, how can Transition US be called corporate when it has exactly one full time staff person and Michael Brownlee is a volunteer for Transition US? I don't see many volunteers wandering around corporate headquarters, do you?
And then, of course, there's the almost requisite media photo treatment. Maybe the Kühnels, two of the initiators of Transition Sandpoint, don't own a shotgun. So I guess they had to be pictured sitting up in a tree, those treehugging hippies.
Despite all that, I think the article is quite valuable, and for one reason... the descriptions of what I believe are very healthy, very human tensions between hope and fear.
Transition’s message is twofold: first, that a dire global emergency demands we transform our society; and second, that we might actually enjoy making those changes. Most people I met in Sandpoint seemed to have latched onto the enjoyment part and run with it. The vibe was much more Alice Watersthan Mad Max. (Jeff Burns, a local food activist who joined the food working group, was a conspicuous exception. “Some people on the food group want to feel good,” he told me, “and some people want to figure out how to feed 40,000 people in case the trucks stop rolling.”)
I'm not sure that I would characterize worry about feeding people as straight out of Mad Max, but for every person who holds on with both hands to a vision of a better future there is another person deeply doubtful. And I'll bet that for every two of them, there are ten who suffer, like me, the schizophrenic dance of hope and fear.
This tension is real and I've seen it again and again in community organizing, between groups of people.
I would venture to say that those who helped shape the Transition Town model fully intended to focus on the positive. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was a reflection of their personal temperaments, but I think it is far more than that--a strategic decision aimed at engaging those who would otherwise never participate in such organizing efforts.
The growth of the movement since its origin in 2006 has perhaps evinced this decision. But I predict that it will not succeed in the ultimate task--helping communities transition to a post carbon world--without making space for fear and those who see a dark future ahead. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here; every person I've spoken with who's involved in Transition networking efforts is keenly aware of both the tension and the need to look at emergency responses. If nothing else, the economic collapse has engaged people in this discussion.
I can't speak for all those working in communities across this country and the world because I simply don't know. But, for what it's worth, I hope those out there doing the hard mobilization work of Transition Initiatives take this as a challenge: Reach out and make space for everyone, including those who envision a different future than you.
The key, in my mind, is not to always reach accord when envisioning the future but rather to create the space for mixed viewpoints, mixed personalities, mixed emotions. Ideally, to focus on joint actions that meet common priorities. It's not just about creating a big tent for all kinds of people. It's also about having a big tent for all kinds of solutions and responses. If people take their energies in a different direction--as long as they aren't in competition for resources and share the fundamental value of community--well, maybe that' s for the best. After all, redundancy and diversity are key components of a resilient system."
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48715
-
Permalink Reply by Laura J Sellens on
-
As far as working with local government goes, I believe it would be a good idea to send a letter to the City and County Councils stating the intent of Transition Whatcom and also reporting the turnout that we had at the Unleashing. This will alert them that they are likely to be hearing from us as a group in the future and that we have substantial clout with the community.
© 2024 Created by David MacLeod.
Powered by
