by Robb Davis
When the Davis Chamber PAC announced its City Council Candidate endorsements in late April, spokesperson Steve Greenfield noted that there are three legs of sustainability for vibrant community: social sustainability[1], environmental sustainability and economic sustainability. At the event Mr. Greenfield noted that the last leg-economic sustainability-was what businesses, and the Chamber PAC needed to focus on. Even though Mr. Greenfield did not define “sustainability” it is clear that he and the Chamber PAC were suggesting that a vigorous community is one that is able provide a broadly healthy environment for its citizens today AND have in place policies and practices that will enable the continual renewal of the resources necessary for a healthy community into the future.
The Chamber PAC has provided some sense of their definition of economic development, including what economic sustainability might look like. Further, I assume that many of us have ideas around the meaning of environmental sustainability even if we do not agree with all the details about how to achieve it. If the business community and the Chamber PAC are the “champions” of economic sustainability, it would seem that organizations like the Sierra Club or the Cool Davis Initiative would be natural “champions” for this “leg” of sustainability.
But what of “social sustainability?” What is it and who are its natural champions? While many of us have likely had conversations about economic and environmental sustainability, I doubt that many of us have thought or talked about social development, conserving the social fabric of our town or what it means to create a socially sustainable town. Yet, I would concur with the Chamber PAC that it is a critical leg for a stable and vigorous community.
I would like to open a discussion about the meaning of social sustainability by suggesting three key elements of a socially healthy community. My purpose in suggesting these three is to solicit feedback and ideas from others so we can think about this critical element of our community’s health.
I would suggest that a socially healthy (and sustainable) community is one that
1) Actively engages in creating and building social capital-especially “bridging” capital.
2) Creates dialogue spaces in which complex issues can be respectfully explored together.
3) Develops and uses an array of conflict transformation mechanisms to deal with the inevitable (and I will argue welcome) conflicts that arise in any community.
Let us look at each in turn.
1. Building social capital (especially bridging capital).
Social capital is the set of human social relationships that enable groups to accomplish positive community actions that no individual member could accomplish alone. There are several important elements in this definition: first, it recognizes that we are social beings and that there are certain things we desire to do (for our own or the community’s good) that we cannot do without the help of others. Further, the focus is on relationships-accomplishing these things goes beyond merely bringing multiple people together to do something. Rather, social capital develops when trust is built and commitments are made and held to in a virtuous cycle.
Two (among other) key forms of social capital are bonding and bridging capital. Bonding capital involves building deep relationships within identity groups to accomplish things that the individuals alone cannot do. In the desperately poor communities around the world in which I have worked, bonding capital is often created among extended family, tribe or ethnic groups and is often critical for survival.
In Davis bonding capital exists in surplus in the many “interest” groups that gather to work together, promote ideas or just have fun together. Think about the many clubs, associations, and advocacy networks that exist here and you begin to see the breadth and depth of bonding capital we have built. This is a good thing. Members of many of these groups have evolved deep relationships with one another and they accomplish amazing things for our town.
However bonding capital is inherently self-limiting. While it may help a relatively small group accomplish a great deal it also tends to be very narrowly focused, prone to group think and often too insular to solve more complex problems that arise in any context. To deal with these natural limitations strongly bonded groups need to be enabled or encouraged to reach out and create bridges to others to solve more complex problems.
Davis has a relative dearth of bridging capital and needs more of it. Strongly bonded groups often define themselves in opposition to other groups and rarely ask how reaching out to them might enable everyone to accomplish more and better things for the community.
If indeed we need more bridging capital, how do we get it? I think we can begin to get it by first being cognizant of our need for it and then by looking for opportunities to build it. Critical to creating bridging capital are leaders (formal and informal) who are mature and confident enough to give up the (relative) power they might hold in an interest group and reach out to others who might hold a piece of the puzzle of how to deal with a complex issue.
2. Creating dialogue spaces
We face many challenging decisions as a city and in a time of reduced resources the need to move forward with adequate solutions becomes more challenging. The issues are complex, multivariate and emotive. They are the source of many discussions, many meetings and even more disagreements. Despite the fact that they are talked about a great deal in a great many venues, I would argue that we rarely engage in true dialogue about any of them.
Dialogue implies that we go beyond presenting predetermined positions to others and find a way to step back and understand (via active listening) the needs of others with whom we may not agree or who have legitimate concerns or questions about what we are proposing. Dialogue is not debate and involves a careful process of speaking and listening, of questioning and considering-of going beyond the positions that people take to understand their needs.
We have a variety of commissions, committees, and public input processes but none of them are designed in their current form to create dialogue. There is no doubt that much can be learned within the context of these public spaces. Facts can be aired and a limited number of questions raised, but the communication channels in these spaces are limited and time too constrained to assure that understanding is achieved. Our emerging “virtual” spaces enable participants to delve more deeply into certain issues but are too often accompanied by non-dialogic elements that would appear to be a function of their “virtualness;” including anonymity, lack of visual cues to show humor, anger or confusion and trolls (linked to anonymity) whose sole purpose is to sow discord.
Dialogue spaces are thus “new” spaces that are carefully structured and grounded in participant guidelines-to enable empathic listening and mutual learning to occur. Such spaces must have the following characteristics:
1. They are arranged with a clear purpose and set of achievement-based objectives
2. They are structured with clear ground rules concerning listening, speaking, and questioning
3. They are carefully prepared to minimize the bias in viewpoints shared on a given topic
4. They are facilitated by experienced facilitators who outline the objectives and assure adherence to ground rules.
What should be clear from the foregoing is that creating dialogue spaces is concerned not only with dealing with content but also with the process by which content is aired and treated.
3. Transforming Conflicts
Conflict within a community is not only inevitable, it is a good that should be welcomed and used to help the community grow. Conflict is like the proverbial iron that sharpens iron. It arises out of the complexity of the world in which we live and helps us weigh our choices and consider alternatives as we seek to solve challenges in collaboration with people who come to the challenge with different backgrounds, experiences and needs.
Unfortunately we usually do not use conflict productively. We may simply try to avoid it or view it as a zero sum competition in which only one “side” can prevail. Conflict dealt with unproductively leads to division, violence (if not physical, verbal) and exclusion. We live in a broader societal context in which it has become more important to “win” or score “gotcha” points than to productively deal with conflict.
I am not suggesting that we learn to “manage” conflict or merely “resolve” it. Rather, I am suggesting that we need to find ways to transform it so as to release the tremendous energy we have in this community.
Again, to launch the discussion I will suggest three practices (among many others) that we could commit to in order to transform conflicts.
1. Commit to not engaging in ad hominem attacks in any venue. This implies that we will not presume to know the motives of others (even if we are SURE we do given our long history of interacting with them). Ad hominem attacks attempt to silence or call into question the validity of someone’s views by pointing out some character flaw or an action they undertook unrelated to the issue at hand.
2. Practice rephrasing the positions of others and asking open question to assure better understanding before wading in with views. In other words, approach all situations as learners first.
These two practices, obviously, focus on written or verbal communication venues
3. Study and begin to practice restorative principles to assure that when harms DO occur (and they will), we will have the means to deal with and move beyond them.
Restorative principles are used in many fields (school discipline, marriage dissolution, juvenile justice-to name a few). What these practices have in common is a commitment to acknowledge when harm is done, to bring stakeholders together to name the effect of the harms and, when appropriate acknowledge responsibility for the harms and discuss ways to make them right.
By now you may be thinking that these three elements of social sustainability are just so much social science mumbo jumbo. While I do not think this is the case it is true that they do not lend themselves to easy step-by-step implementation programs. My point in writing this piece is to start naming the things that make for a socially robust-a resilient-community. Over 25 years of experience in some of the most broken and violent places on the planet has taught me that communities can and do reclaim social health in finding ways to practice the foregoing principles. Please add to my suggestions and then, together, let us see how we might evolve reflective ways to practice them. Also suggest the people or groups who might help champion this “leg” of sustainability.
[1] Mr Greenfield actually referred to “social justice” sustainability but other references by Chamber PAC members would indicate a more general concept of social sustainability.
Finally, someone addresses this topic in a significant way. So much has focused on the other two pieces of the puzzle. But little, if anything, has been said of social sustainability. Excellent, excellent article Mr. Davis.
Robb
As a student of anthropology and political science in my former lifetime (pre medical school) I very much appreciate your ideas. Your piece ties in well with the concept of building community indirectly alluded to by hpierce in her comments about volunteerism. To me, existing volunteer groups might be one logical place to start building social sustainability as these will be people who already bring with them a strongly developed sense of community/social responsibility.
Mr. Davis, where do you/can you imagine “social sustainability” to really take root? Are there any projects you think (now or in the future) lend themselves to fostering social sustainability on a bigger scale in Davis?
Dear Concerned Citizen — I have a number of ideas about where/how we can foster a socially sustainable community. Some good examples already exist. Unfortunately I am heading out the door to the farm where I work and would ask you to allow me to give some ideas later in the day. Thanks for your interest in discussing these ideas. You (or anyone) can also contact me directly about this at robbbike@me.com.
Robb, I couldn’t be more excited than to affiliate with your writing. Environmental sustainability is the broadest and most defining phrase for the practices of Davis over the decades related to energy and planning innovations, and open space, natural resources protection. The our current Council is redefining the city’s role in long-term fiscal sustainability – and those are the words we are using. “Sinking” funds for long term capital are top-of-mind for the and that’s all about long-term sustainable infrastructure. Davis’ leadership in urban-ag connections via the Farmers Market, Farm To School, urban farms, etc. fit sustainability — economic and more. The legacy of federal debt we are creating for our children is not sustainable; as tough as it is, the state having to balance its budget does fit. I would add community safety to the sustainability arc – safe communities are the foundation of the social sustainability you discuss. I look forward to following and advancing the overall theme of sustainability, clearly and broadly defined. Thanks, again, for such a thoughtful piece.
[quote]However bonding capital is inherently self-limiting. While it may help a relatively small group accomplish a great deal it also tends to be very narrowly focused, prone to group think and often too insular to solve more complex problems that arise in any context. To deal with these natural limitations strongly bonded groups need to be enabled or encouraged to reach out and create bridges to others to solve more complex problems.
Davis has a relative dearth of bridging capital and needs more of it. Strongly bonded groups often define themselves in opposition to other groups and rarely ask how reaching out to them might enable everyone to accomplish more and better things for the community.
If indeed we need more bridging capital, how do we get it? I think we can begin to get it by first being cognizant of our need for it and then by looking for opportunities to build it. Critical to creating bridging capital are leaders (formal and informal) who are mature and confident enough to give up the (relative) power they might hold in an interest group and reach out to others who might hold a piece of the puzzle of how to deal with a complex issue…
Dialogue implies that we go beyond presenting predetermined positions to others and find a way to step back and understand (via active listening) the needs of others with whom we may not agree or who have legitimate concerns or questions about what we are proposing. Dialogue is not debate and involves a careful process of speaking and listening, of questioning and considering-of going beyond the positions that people take to understand their needs.
[/quote]
Juxtapose the above comments against what I read in the 5-17-12 Davis Enterprise:
[quote]Teachers turn their backs on budget presentation
Restive Davis teachers, upset at a proposal to cut their salary by 5 percent, disrupted Wednesday’s Board of Education meeting by turning their backs while the superintendent spoke and loudly clapping to drown out other speakers.
Board president Susan Lovenburg called a five-minute break shortly before 8 p.m. and threatened to adjourn the meeting altogether if the disruption continued.
The Community Chambers at Davis City Hall were packed by members of the Davis Teachers Association and their supporters, who had rallied earlier in the evening at Central Park.
When Superintendent Winfred Roberson began his introductory comments on the state of school district finances, several dozen teachers and supporters stood up, turned their backs, and remained that way throughout his presentation…
DTA president Gail Mitchell said in an email after the meeting that teachers turned their backs because they were frustrated at “being forced to listen to the same presentation we have heard over and over again. They continue to believe that we just don’t get it. We do understand! We disagree. That’s not the same thing.”…
At this point, the hand-clapping began, making it difficult to hear spoken comments, and Lovenburg called a break. A substantial portion of the crowd left over the next few minutes…
Juliet Crates said she was “appalled” by those who stood and turned their backs on the school board. “I understand that it’s emotional,” she said, “but we need to come together.”…
Lovenburg expressed concern about the “divisiveness” earlier in the meeting. She said passage of the tax hike in November is “something of a solution” but worried “if we spend all our time pointing fingers at each other, we create in the electorate a sense that we need to solve our problems. We need to all pull together.” [/quote]
I would also add that social sustainability would include the community’s ability to take care of its most vulnerable populations, e.g. children, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless, low income.
To clarify, I don’t mean just economically sustain vulnerable populations, but “care for” in the broadest sense of the word…
If humans had an “emotions” switch on the back of their neck that could be switched off after the discovery/analysis phase of collaborative problem solving, we would accomplish much more. Egos, needing to feel liked, loved, validated, not rejected, or not irrelevant… these and the general fear/dislike of change are all the source of human risks to the project. However, critics are a dime a dozen and technology allows us to criticize every decision made by others… so our emotions rage and we criticize. Then when we feel we are not heard, we become more vitriolic. With all due respect, I think investments in bonding capital and bridging capital have a pretty low ROI these days. The problem is that we allow too many emotive and incapable people participate, and nobody is making the tough decisions.
Our failures in social governance, and hence economic sustainability, correlate with a move to a more pure democracy… where everyone has a say, and modern media empowers the resourceful crank, to interfere. The more decision participants you add to any collaborative effort, the greater the risk the effort will fail. The more of those are tantrum-throwing-resisters-to-change-at-all-costs types, the probability of failure increases.
I don’t disagree with these recommendations, but I also do not see them as a panacea. Leaders get things done and they will piss off some people along the way. Life is too short, and problems too urgent to seek consensus on everything. Our nation’s Democratic representative government was designed in part to combat the known ills of pure democracy. We are not the same as a tribe in the Congo, but we seem to act more and more like one.
I agree that we need to work to develop deeper relationships among capable citizens. We also need to build and exploit bonding and bridging capital. But lastly, and most importantly, we need leaders with some backbone to make the damn decisions and stop pandering to an electorate that ensures they are “politician for life!” Get in, do some good, and then go back to your real life. That is the way it is supposed to work.
Margret Mead quote (I think):
[quote]”Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”[/quote]
Jeff,
I don’t know where you get the impression we are moving to a more pure democracy.
“Democracy” is getting more lip service, and the techniques used by business and political leaders to market the notion to the public that they have a voice, are getting more scientific. So perhaps some are sold by this rhetoric that we are getting more democratic representation. It seems to me a more sophisticated dog and pony show; and that the big decisions in governance are increasingly steered by big moneyed interests.
jimt, my sense is Robb and Jeff were focusing more on a local level. You seem to be focusing on a state, federal or international level. Or are you suggesting that “big moneyed interests” are making the decisions in Davis?
-Michael Bisch
Robb, kudos to you for a well written article. It will be exceedingly difficult for our community to address the challenges confronting us unless we practice your suggestions.
-Michael Bisch
jimt, Michael is correct, I was more focused on the local level where we have a lot of participation from the bottom up. I generally love the fact that Davis gets more citizen participation in local governance. However, I think too much of it is only in protest, and we lack the type of city leadership – so far – that can cut through it all and do the right things. I find myself developing growing admiration for communities with more top-down power to get things done.
I largely agree with your points considering the national and state level for politics. However, I would add that the voting population is more influenced by media which is exploited by business and political leaders. In this way they can manufacture bottom-up support in a way that mimics a more pure democracy. The facts don’t really matter; it is who controls the narrative and who sways the popular opinion.
DT Businessman and Jeff,
Apologies, I was ranting a bit off the track of the discussion topic with a view more to the fed level. I guess I’m worried such coups could happen to a broader extent at the local level, particularly in places where there is big big money to be made by development interests when the economy picks up, with particularly lucrative margins if only the local politicos can be had. However I’m not ‘in the loop’ as far as Davis politics, and so do not have any special knowledge about what goes on behind the scenes in Davis in particular.
I apologize for not commenting earlier and it may be too late but… (in no particular order)
Ms Musser: I fully agree with your point about care for the most vulnerable. I had this in an earlier version of the article but left it out to reduce the length. I also appreciate your follow on comment about the meaning of “care.” I would value the opportunity to discuss your ideas about this at some point.
Mr Krovoza: I think that human security (in its fullest dimension) flows from a robust and resilient community. I think creating a strong social fabric (where trust is high) is a key ingredient to creating security.
Mr Boone: Nothing in what I wrote suggests anything about decision making processes. When I talk about “dialogue spaces”, for example, I am not talking about a “consensus” decision making process (consensus is impossible in large communities and not a prerequisite for social sustainability). I am primarily talking about helping create a more aware and knowledgeable community. Bringing people together in dialogue is designed to provide a safe space for people to ask questions, have misunderstandings cleared up and develop a shared understanding of an issue at hand (pick any challenging issue under discussion in Davis). This does not mean that people will leave agreeing on everything, but it means that people will have had a chance to listen, learn and share ideas in a respectful setting. Also, I hope you see in what I wrote a strong role for formal and informal leaders. Our leaders can help move us towards many of these things. I would like to write more about leadership in the future. It is a very rare resource indeed…
Mr Bisch: you are correct–this article is ONLY about local social sustainability. I think in a town the size of Davis we can do much to create a more resilient community.
Concerned Citizen: Yours is a big question… It may require a second article 😉 (Don’t worry, I won’t inflict another one on folks here). I think there ARE roots already established in the community. As I noted, bonding capital is strong and I see examples of bridging capital at work too. This may sound silly but take a look at the work that Jake Clemons has done pulling people together for the Tour de Cluck. This is a large event that supports a critical program–Farm to School–and Jake has brought people from various interest groups together to work on it. That in itself may be unremarkable but the relationships that we have built with people outside our primary “bonded” groups have opened doors to other forms of collaboration for the good of our community. I need to say much more about this but it is an example to me of how reaching across interest groups creates new relationships of trust that can be brought to bear on solving other challenges.
In terms of dialogue spaces the question is WHO should/could organize them and around what themes. I would like to see some of the City Commissions or Committees organize them around critical themes. I have some ideas about how this might work for the water issue (and hope to talk to some committee members about it). As Medwoman noted, I think it might be time to start talking about volunteerism to accomplish tasks for which the city lacks resources. I think it would not be unreasonable to have an ad hoc committee of respected community leaders invited by the City Council to create public dialogue around this issue. We have some great facilitators in this town who could help organize a very good learning process. Fresno County has been doing some amazing things to create dialogue around issues of incarceration and crime. We could learn from what they have done.
In terms of dealing with conflict… lots to say here and some of it transcends our city and would need to include the County. That concerns restorative processes. In terms of issues related to communication… that would all be voluntary of course but I think it would be great for some regular posters/commenters at the Vanguard to show the way by developing and encouraging a voluntary code of communication here. I am not trying to “steal” Don’s job but think regular users here could put forth some standards that we could all help one another uphold.
The point here is that some roots exist and LOTS of opportunities exist to create new ones. There will be no “social sustainability program.” It will take a variety of efforts at various levels to nurture it. Hope this helps but look forward to more conversations.