Stuart/Frank,
Your discussion SM theory is interesting and I feel that in many ways you
both have very valid points. Valid in the sense that it you both make sense!
However any theory is in many ways suspect as it will contain different
values that will direct the application of the theory in some way. Is it
directed change that we need for SM to be effective? or will Directed change
occur once the SM can be harnessed by someone else? or will SM decide what
direction it needs to take? Do you know what is most likely to happen?
A theory developed scientifically as a response to identifying a casual root
is also just as suspect, and when developed only has a momentarily validity.
The relationship and indeed the causal root will change as the relationships
between the elements and parts within a complex system change day by day and
hour by hour. The only stable thing is the system, which if not
people/patient centred, can in itself become an oppressor of change.
Creating the conditions or environment where change can occur is only half
the job. Helping people to be creative and explore the power of the freedom
to choose what they may want to use to improve their lot is the key.
This can only be done through helping them to acknowledge they creative and
subsequent complex powers that are intrinsic to everyone. If there is no
distinction between how they can manage their personal lives as well as
their professional ones then one of the major problems relating to the
development of social movement is resolved.
How for example can one part relate to another...or one person relate to
others if they don't really have an initial identity in the first place? Can
this identity solely come from a profession or clinical speciality? I don't
think so. Real identity comes from the creative individual who doesn't have
to in a reactive way but deals in a proactive way with the complexities of
live on a day to day basis - not as just an individual in the objective
sense but also as an individual in the subjective sense. Too often we let
our heads get in the way and one that happens and insight and intuition that
is contained within the individual is lost...and so is the creativity.
Many people deal with each situation according to the identity that they
have in any given context. No wonder there is so much confusion. and no
wonder so many people loose the plot altogether ( if not themselves).
Moreover there are many individual's who have no real awareness of their
identity or are confused about who they really are.This make both self
directing activity and integrity difficult to find.
We are all a result of the of the 'linear world that we live in'- and also
one the education system post primary school, underwrites at every
occasion )( although that is beginning to dwindle).As we are gradually
socialise into society for society we learn not to play or be creative. You
could argue that we also in many respect learn not to be ourselves. It is
this in the context of complexity that make self organisation difficult to
achieve.
Self organisation is a major requisite if the NHS is to improve its lot..it
will not come from the top but could be harnessed by it ( at which point it
will become a managed exercise and therefore not a real social movement in
the first place). We need simple concepts if real SM is to take place and an
environment that is encouraged through the development of five simple
elements.These are Identity; Relationships, Information .Authenticity and
Integrity. It is these element that will form the basis of a good creative
dynamic which will in turn be oiled though the communication processes that
we all struggle with.
In this respect I think that the process is crucial and the outcome non
predictable. As soon as you ignore the process in order to focus on the
outcome you immediately take on a linear pattern. If SM in the NHS is
desirable - and I believe that it is, you will need to allow the organic
nature of the process to take place by contributing to the creation of the
conditions to enable this to happen. This is true complexity as it relies
solely on the interactive dynamics of people. The relationship between self
organising and self regulation will then become clear. Don't try to manage
emergence - that would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Shaun Naidoo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Hall" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Exeter
> All good stuff - but you don't need to use social movement theory to move
> people into a social movement which is your benefit. That's linear
thinking
> and action.
> So it just depends on how you expect SM theory to work. Its not the means
> that count but the end - positive change which is reflected in positive
> outcomes. I see SM theory as simply encouraging self-activity, with the
> objective reality providing the predictable environment for the direction
of
> change. ie given the change to do something about their circumstances
people
> will do so if they are trusted and supported. no more than that. that's
the
> 'dynamical key' if you like. the complexity is generated through people's
> creativity. but at the end of the day that complexity will come down
> to...positive change which is reflected in positive outcomes.
>
> S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Smits (Symphoenix Ltd) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 September 2002 13:16
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Exeter
>
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
> I am not disagreeing with you at all. You have to self-organise around
> something, right?! No objection. But, and this is where I might phrase
> things differently, people ALWAYS self-organise. In that sense it does
> happen, not by magic but by means of people being (free) people
> interacting. 'Themes' continuously emerge in this interaction. You can
> provide the stimulus for it, but the very basic nature of
> self-organisation is that you cannot predict (and control!) where people
> will put their discretionary energy in (how they as individuals will
> choose to engage in the conversation). So, why would they -because one
> would want that to happen- 'self-organise' into this movement?
>
> Paraphrasing what Ralph Stacey talked about at the Exeter conference:
> people can make 'gestures' into the conversation that may, or may not,
> have the effect they want...
>
> My remark that you reacted to was to the view expressed in Exeter that
> we need to create 'just the right environment' to have this movement do
> what we would like to see. If I could just find that silver bullet, that
> would be great! :-)
> I think that controlling self-organisation (that is not what you said,
> but what I sensed the social movement idea came down to) is a real
> contradiction in terms.
> Hence my remark.
>
> There certainly are things that we can do to create an environment that
> will recognise the self-organising 'energy' in organisations and with
> that perhaps not work against it, but helps people see things in a way
> that they may want to engage in ways we would like.
> My experience in organisations is that people are quite willing to put
> their energy in things they believe in, but it remains their choice, not
> someone 'outside' of their environment.
>
> Perhaps I react so strongly to this social movement idea, because I have
> a fear that people will start using the concept of self-organisation as
> a way to justify quite unhealthy command & control patterns. I once
> heard a senior manager in Citibank say after a complexity conference in
> the US: "what would our people say if they find out we have
> self-organised them?". I am sure all can see the rather ridiculous
> contradiction in this! :-)
>
> There are other ways, and my suggestion would be to explore those rather
> than to expect that things will emerge that we would like.
> Again, I realise that that is not what you said, Stuart. I agree with
> your premise. I just need to qualify where my rather strong reaction
> came from. Sensing the audience in Exeter during Helen's session, I was
> not the only one...
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Smits
> Symphoenix Ltd
> Tel: +44 (0)1732 450 495
> Mobile: +44 (0)7715 423 150
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.symphoenix.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Complexity and chaos theories applied to primary medical and
> social care [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Stuart Hall
> Sent: 23 September 2002 11:11
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Exeter
>
> I disagree. Self-organisation does not happen by magic. It is a complex
> response. Why cannot an external point provide the stimulus for
> self-organisation?
>
> Stuart
>
> -----Original Message----i
>
> Another way of phrasing is 'social movement' idea is:
>
> "If only we could self-organise the people around what we would like,
> things would turn out really well".
>
> I can see the intention of this, but the whole trick about
> self-organisation is that it is SELF-organisation, from within, rather
> than from the outside!! :-)
> It is fundamentally flawed, alas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Smits
> Symphoenix Ltd
> Tel: +44 (0)1732 450 495
> Mobile: +44 (0)7715 423 150
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Website: www.symphoenix.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Complexity and chaos theories applied to primary medical and
> social care [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Stuart Hall
> Sent: 23 September 2002 09:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Exeter
>
> Chris
>
> Of course you refer to the obvious external features of social movements
> which on the surface you suggest don't appear to be relevant to the NHS
> context. So again, back to the root, to understand relevance...At its
> simplest social movements are people voluntarily coming together to
> promote
> change - it has a DIY quality if you like. Understanding how to
> stimulate
> that people-centred action (as opposed to process-centred) lies at the
> application of social movement theory. Through such an approach lies the
> benefits of more creativity and energy to deal with 'general inertia'.
> There
> may appear to be a contradiction the impetus for the self-organised
> activity
> starts at the top - but again I argue that is not key. Key is whether
> given
> the opportunity presented by the stimulus people want to act. The
> stimulus
> can come from a number of points of origin from that key standpoint.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Stuart wrote
> >...... For me the objective of science is to study the
> >casual root of any particular phenomena, so it can be applied in an
> >unrelated sphere. I believe this is true of social movement theory,
> >which does not at its root depend of movement from below, it
> >requires interaction between change promoters and subjects, a model
> >equally applicable to the NHS.
>
> Having spent a short while digging around SM theory I am not struck that
> top-down is a particularly common approach. Much is about empowerment
> and
> enablement, currently around particularised topics such as one group's
> specific needs / demands. In the past SMs have worled for more generic
> issues such as basic civil freedoms, which have, by and large become
> institutionalised.
>
> The following quote seems to sum up what I have found
> "One synthesis of several social movement theories sees all mass
> movements
> arising through a combination of four related factors:
> _ A discontented group of politicized persons who have grievances they
> wish
> addressed.
> _ A core group of strategic leaders and local activists that effectively
> mobilize the politicized persons.
> _ The recruitment of politicized persons into the movement through
> pre-existing social networks.
> _ The availability of opportunities in the social and political
> environment
> exploitable by movement leaders and activists."
>
> I don't think one needs to embrace social movements to encourage change
> promoters and potential changees to get together, I thought all methods
> of
> encouraging change apart from dictatorship used these.
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris Burton, [log in to unmask] on 22/09/2002
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:58:08 +0100, Stuart Hall wrote:
> >Chris
> >
> >Good questions. For me the objective of science is to study the
> >casual root of any particular phenomena, so it can be applied in an
> >unrelated sphere. I believe this is true of social movement theory,
> >which does not at its root depend of movement from below, it
> >requires interaction between change promoters and subjects, a model
> >equally applicable to the NHS.
> >
> >Stuart
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Burton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: 20 September 2002 21:18 To: COMPLEXITY-PRIMARY-
> >[log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Exeter
> >
> >
> >Stuart
> >
> >fair enough but wasn't Helen Bevan advocating that the NHS stir up
> >the social movement among its own members. To whom do you think your
> >historical quote "We have no plan, we have no program, we ask the
> >people what to do." applies now?
> >
> >As far as I am aware the civil rights activists campaigned because
> >they were fed up with their lot, not because the government at the
> >top told them to.
> >
> >I am aware that there is a tradition in American politics of
> >attempting to destabilise those with unacceptable views or behaviour
> >by inciting grassroots change. Such work has traditionally been
> >undertaken by "The Agency", although usually on someone else's turf.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >--
> >Chris Burton, [log in to unmask] on 20/09/2002
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:49:49 +0100, Stuart Hall wrote:
> >>I didn't get chance to say my little anecdote on social movements
> >>(I really liked the application of social movement theory in NHS
> >>modernisation by the way) yesterday so...
> >>
> >>When the Student National Co-ordinatory Committee (SNCC, or
> >>pronounced 'snicc') in the early 1960s attempted to mobilize black
> >>people in the American southern states as part of voter
> >>registration drives they faced considerable white resistance. Asked
> >>how SNCC organised to deal with this complex context one activist
> >>explained: "We have no plan, we have no program, we ask the people
> >>what to do." This quote from a history of that time came to mind
> >>when I chanced to meet Julian Bond, a key civil rights activist in
> >>1998, and so I asked him what his views were of it as an
> >>explanation. He replied: "That's just because we really didn't have
> >>a plan."
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>
> >>Stuart G. Hall www.m-power.org.uk (personal site) www.hda-
> >>online.org.uk (corporate site)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>____________________________________________________________________
> >>_ ___
> >>
> >>This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> >>
> >>The content is confidential, may be legally privileged and is
> >>intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone
> >>else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> >>disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
> >>be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
> >>
> >>Health Development Agency
> >>____________________________________________________________________
> >>_ ___
> >>
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >___
> >
> >This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >___
> >
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >___
> >
> >This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> >
> >The content is confidential, may be legally privileged and is
> >intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone
> >else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any
> >disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to
> >be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
> >
> >Health Development Agency
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >___
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
>
> The content is confidential, may be legally privileged and is
> intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
> is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
> reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Health Development Agency
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
>
> The content is confidential, may be legally privileged and is
> intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
> is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
> reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Health Development Agency
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by MessageLabs
>
> The content is confidential, may be legally privileged and is
> intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else
> is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
> reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Health Development Agency
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
|
