Prototype

Last night, between computering and a meeting, we had the opportunity to see Mr. Gladwell and Mr. Kingwell duke it out in a battle of whose horse is bigger. A friend with the same name was kind enough to give us tickets. A brief synopsis:

A thought-provoking discussion with Malcolm Gladwell and Mark Kingwell – two of the world’s most popular thinkers, theorists, authors and speakers. The evening will encourage thought and dialogue about social change.

Most notable parts of the discussion included Gladwell’s point that we shouldn’t forget about the motive of self-interest when working for socially good causes, and Kingwell’s counterpoint that we shouldn’t forget the motive of greater-interest when designing our overlying economic structure.

A couple general themes ran throughout the discussion and made for an interesting – though convoluted at times – exchange. Certainly it was a conversation between a journalist and a philosopher. Malcolm used many case studies/stories, stringing a narrative through information. Mark used only one example, biblical no less, which he dissected at length. Leaving off on a high note he spoke to the human condition and the need for greater love and awareness of each other. This divide followed throughout the discussion, so these themes are dualistic due to the context of each speaker’s background.

Between action and awareness

Gladwell, Kingwell and Avril Benoît (the moderator) agreed early on in the discussion, that what was needed for social change is action, and that awareness plays a smaller role. The line between awareness and action is where things breakdown. Gladwell argued that there are many cases where awareness is not necessary at all.

1. Massive awareness campaigns failed miserably in getting children to put on their Seat belts. Their use became more ubiquitous once the government asked parents to buckle up their children. The activity of parents buckling up their own kids turned those back seat passengers into back seat advocates, of the seat belt wearing kind. In this case, awareness was superfluous and action propelled change.

2. Chemical companies adopted environmentally sound practices because it saved them money. There has been a massive public awareness campaign for the environment since the 60s (see Silent Spring by Rachel Carson). Many credit the change of chemical companies compliance with the conservation mandate with this awareness, the idea of doing good to mother earth. In fact, what those companies realized, is that those environmental policies were making their business more efficient, and in effect making more money. We all feel bad about our position in the world as wasters and destroyers. Yet the best solutions we have are buying a Prius and sorting our waste.

3. Awareness in the context of gay marriage is actually not helpful. When we ask people to accept the concept of marriage, we do not ask them to be aware of it, we ask them to just forget about it. This is a private decision, and it is not something you should care about. Yet another argument against the notion of awareness is as an agent of change.

Kingwell argued that in order to truly change for the better, we must have a gauge on which to judge our progress. Proposed was the idea of change which comforts the tormented and torments the comfortable. A big disagreement came up when Gladwell said that gay marriage is an issue we shouldn’t care deeply about. Kingwell retorted, the underlying principle we need in order to allow gay marriage is to see gay people as human, or equal. Gladwell said that already happened. Kingwell said Gladwell needs to get out of New York. And the banter continued.

It’s worth speaking about the difference between these separate concepts of awareness. Gladwell sees awareness as having knowledge of an issue, the details of the matter. Kingwell sees awareness as a greater human understanding, an enlightened general interest. Gladwell speaks about actions which make us crave awareness. Kingwell speaks of awareness which makes us crave action, or compassion.

Small tests, big changes

Gladwell spoke a bit about the idea, as mentioned in the chemical company example, of trying small things and getting the fact straight. This is a very seductive approach. It is the idea of sketching from the design world, and the idea of rapid iteration from an engineering stand point. In his final remarks, Gladwell suggested the change of tomorrow will come from entrepreneurs who know the situation better than he. The people working on small projects with great potential for change. His question, what if the environmental movement, instead of raising great awareness about destructive chemical companies, put their energy into researching efficient methods for chemical production. Would we have come to the solution sooner? How does this affect our approach now in relation to world changing?

Patterns for change

Within the conversation were two very different scales. Once of the specific, and one of the general. Spaces between those themes were seldom crossed. Gladwell maintained his grip on reality and case studies. Kingwell maintain his focus on humanity, love, compassion, and empathy. Gladwell said protests don’t work anymore. They are not necessary for change in our society. Kingwell said this is not true of the majority of countries, pseudo-democracies, in the world. Protests would be exactly what they need.

One very important insight Gladwell gave was the idea of different solutions for different problems. These differences could be in scale (from lawn upkeep, to inner contemplation). They could be in terms of context (Canada to Tibet). They could be in terms of urgency (Do we have time to test things in little iterations?). Whatever the differences, we recognize they exist. We also recognize that there are certain benchmarks or patterns which can be applied to further that cause. Protests, letter-writing, boycotting, letter to the editor, blogging, graffiti, postering, guerrilla action, terrorism, meetups, terrorism meetups, barcamp, party, photos, talking to people about it, t-shirts, new routines, theatre, music, forums, debates, websites, disruptive products, technologies in general. These are only a few of the many patterns which can be applied in appropriate situations.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am and is filed under Ideas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.