Resilience Revisited 02: If not coalescence, can we collaborate?

Come gather ’round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You’ll be drenched to the bone If your time to you is worth savin’ And you better start swimmin’ Or you’ll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin’ … Bob Dylan, “The Times they are A-Changin’” 1963

Prompted by a year-end note that began with Dylan’s Masters of War (thanks Gerard (“Gerry”) Salole, I can’t help but recall his equally timeless classic written in the same year (1963 go figure!).

“The time’s they are a-changin’” was “a song with a purpose, a deliberate attempt to create an anthem of change for the moment” that would amplify “the sentiment of the masses”.  Written during a transformative era, its message transcends the preoccupations of the time. Its call for change so resonant with these days, this time.

Reflecting on this, I was struck by a recent LinkedIn post resurfacing George Monbiot’s 2022 “Days of Rage” arguing for the need for systemic change over incrementalism. Monbiot rightly and eloquently argues that only transformative strategies can match the scale of our planetary crisis, stating:

“the problem was never that system change is too big an ask or takes too long. The problem is that incrementalism is too small an ask. … Only a demand for system change …has the potential to match the scale of the problem and to inspire and mobilise the millions of people required to generate effective action”.

This sentiment echoes a frequent divide in environmental movements, notably illustrated by the “Fundis” (fundamentalists) and “Realos” (realists) within the German Green Party. To clarify terms, “Fundis” advocated for radical, systemic change, often challenging existing political and economic structures. In contrast, “Realos” supported more pragmatic, incremental approaches within the existing framework. The crux of the dispute was the ideological and strategic differences that emerged between these two approaches – the kind of disput George is talking about.

The conflict first emerged in the Hessen Green Party during the 1982 state elections and a split became evident in the early 1980s and 1990s. The Greens’ program then opposed coalition with major parties like SPD and CDU. Those against a coalition with SPD were labelled Fundis. However, by 1985, the Greens joined a coalition in Hessen, marking a victory for the Realos. This schism continued to play out over the years, with the Fundis forming the Left Forum in the late 1980s and some leaving the party in the early 1990s. The Realos eventually gained a more dominant position, especially after the Greens joined the federal cabinet in 1998. The Fundi faction’s influence waned until their effective departure – and seeming disappearance.

I’m wondering whether there are similar examples of parties taking on “Fundi-like” approaches to radical transformation and how their work is unfolding. Sadly I think Monbiot is right, that despite recognition of the need for more substantial action, the trend in environmental policy, particularly in more developed nations, remains grounded in moderate and incremental approaches that are not fundamentally altering the prevailing economic and industrial systems in the way that a Fundi approach might try to do.

So how do we change that? Even before reading this post, I was musing with others equally concerned around me, what we could do, what was really needed to meet the moment now, what and how we could put our hope and energy into better action. Questioning whether we need more conversations? more practical sharing of approaches? more understanding?

It was at this time that George’s article was resurfaced by the perceptive Erin Remblance whose LinkedIn post quoted the above and highlighted the 2024 “Project Tipping Point” programme about to kick off. At the same time, the work of Small Giants Academy and their upcoming Climate Leadership Accelerator (amongst others I would love to do!), John Fullerton‘s next Regenerative Economics programme (which I just completed), and the insightful conversations held by Post Carbon Institute and Omega all came across my screen. I was struck by just how many others there are too: so many approaches to ‘new …’ providing training courses, conversations and programmes to develop the capacity, insights, wisdom, and action strategies for organising and building momentum for a new way of being and doing, for the next economy, the regenerative future etc. … As someone who developed the Routes to Resilience programmes and who hosts conversations on resilience, sustainability, philanthropy and the polycrisis, It got me wondering how these might all, inadvertently, be dispersing the potential energy for change. Is there a way to better connect the dots and the people with the same agenda for change so that momentum builds faster and a tipping point can be reached sooner?

What is stopping us from putting purpose before brand and driving some kind of scale through coalescence? Can we prioritise the agenda and drive the change this way, expanding the force field behind collective network energy? And is there an access model of this resource for the common good that need not a ‘business model’, allowing a new way for engaging, amplifying and empowering voices that are committed to the change but can’t afford to join to find the mic. Collectively it must be more possible to reach the social tipping point we need that way, no?

I’m up for getting behind a collaborative agenda in 2024. I would love to know whether / how this might be envisaged in your work.

Resilience Revisited is an occasional blog series reflecting on the need for a deeper understanding of the concept of resilience, one that inspires an exploration of its complexities and a conscious, intentional shift towards achieving strong resilience – and sustainability – individually and collectively.  It is a way of articulating my thoughts on my PhD journey. Whilst it is my primary authorship, it comes from the synthesis of many thought contributions for which I am immensely grateful. This was not numbered in the original posting … wondering why then my PhD is reflecting on ‘collective resilience’ – with collaboration at the core?

Image explanation: My instruction to DALL-E was: can you create an image depicting the coalescence of many points of light into a force field.

DALL-E’s explanation: The image, titled “Luminous Convergence,” is an abstract representation of numerous tiny points of light coming together to form a dynamic and radiant force field. Each point of light shines with its own intensity, creating a scene that is both cosmic and mesmerizing. As these points merge, they create a pulsating energy field that glows vibrantly. Set against a deep black background, the contrast emphasizes the luminosity and brilliance of the lights. This scene captures a transformative moment where individual lights unify into a singular, powerful display of energy, symbolizing unity, strength, and the beauty of coming together to form something greater.