15th July 2000
Reflections on the Strategy of UNESCO
***
-- / --
Adapted from the response to a consultation
Stakes and challenges at the dawn of the twenty-first century
We consider that UNESCO's mandate is the most exciting of all intergovernmental organizations. It is therefore with regret that our response focuses on its apparent inability to arouse such excitement in practice.
The most fundamental problem for UNESCO is that of learning new ways of listening and working with constituencies that may be articulating unexpected messages of relevance to a rapidly evolving social and institutional environment.
UNESCO has had a tendency to predetermine the kinds of information it considers relevant by a variety of devices that ensure that new signals are obscured or ignored. Such devices include:
- using outmoded categories within which to frame inquiries about its future, whilst framing such categories as the most appropriate
- framing questions in terms of the institutional agendas and momentum of existing divisional structures and excluding signals that cross departmental preoccupations
- restricting its consultation to bodies that have been recognized by criteria unrelated to the content of signals of potential significance to its future development and the nature of the crises to be encountered
- depending on consultation timeframes and programme restructuring that exclude emerging signals in favour of those evident months or years before
- indulging in expensive public relations gestures of questionable value at the expense of investment in substantive programmes
The challenge for UNESCO is not the current or foreseeable problems, but rather evolving a process for learning of, and dealing with, unforeseen problems that are liable to emerge in the future as requiring greater attention than those foreseen. Typically these will first be reported by unrecognized bodies and will cross and stretch departmental mandates. They will challenge existing mindsets and patterns of expertise. In this respect, UNESCO needs to develop a form of 'lifelong learning' for itself to ensure a posture of strategic nimbleness.
The following remarks are a development of a submission to the UNESCO Task Force on Education for the 21st Century:
A. What are the factors that are most critical to the long term survival of humanity ?
Development of a language and mode of dialogue appropriate to working collectively with the ecology of fundamental differences characteristic of real social and individual relationships, rather than dependent upon superficial reconciliation and reduction of complexity. This implies giving content to that which cannot be effectively named.
Development of the ability to integrate the polarized modes of understanding promoting fragmentation so as to engender a new kind of cognitively global framework that both justifies such polarization at one level and sustain a more comprehensive, if paradoxical, form of understanding at another. This implies a shift from either/or to both/and (of most significance with respect to ownership of property).
Reduction in dependency on relatively simplistic, selective, and often impoverished, metaphors underlying the models through which individuals, communities, humanity and the environment are readily defined, notably for policy purposes but also as a basis for any sense of identity and fulfilment.
Development of a proactive approach, integrating, rather than excluding, unwelcome phenomena (of the 'shadow' of humanity) -- taking account of processes of denial, the functional truths associated with such phenomena, and the ever-present 'obsolete' understandings associated with educational or historical phases and with the challenges to acquiring and using the latest insights.
Development beyond expectation of universal consensus on single-factor explanations, or on a single paradigm, (global) plan, charter, vision, strategy or (licensed) model -- towards collective use of an 'ecology' of such knowledge organizing principles.
Development of social and cognitive experiments, equivalent to those in science and technology, in order to explore new community contexts capable of containing the richer dynamics of multi-cultural societies.
Development of fulfilling ways of living more simply in the present rather than depending on technology as a source of stimulus and meaningful quality-of-life.
B. What are the current map and trajectory of these factors?
Whilst there is acknowledgement of the significance of these factors within certain constituencies, there are major trends that effectively obscure them. Thus there is a widespread, misguided belief in the adequacy of existing language - whether that of a particular discipline or of English as a 'universal' language -- to articulate the insights necessary for global transformation. Innovation in dialogue processes is simplistic and culture-bound in comparison with technological innovation. Major initiatives continue to be based on the assumption that a single global plan, charter, strategy or explanation can be articulated in response to the crises of humanity. There is little ability to handle fundamental disagreement and honour it within new initiatives. Such denial extends beyond disagreement itself to any problematic situations, involving a widespread desire to restrict attention to positive information and to design out negative feedback. Social experiment, in contrast to that of technology or commerce, is effectively inhibited and marginalized as dangerous (and often associated with eccentric sects). Exploration of more meaningful quality of life, with a smaller environmental footprint, is framed as quaint and unrealistic.
C. What are the problems and opportunities with the factors identified?
Problems: The factors identified focus on intangibles in a situation in which it is tangibles that appear to call for the most immediate action. Furthermore it is primarily on tangibles that governments, commerce and university research are most prepared to focus in order to sustain their legitimacy. In each case demonstrable success in the short-term is required, even if this has little useful impact on long-term challenges.
Opportunities: The many pleas for 'new thinking' indicate that the limitations of the traditional approach on tangibles are increasingly recognized. Furthermore the low costs of work on intangibles and the degrees of freedom implicit in this emphasis, indicate that many can and will explore the opportunities of such factors without being dependent on major institutional support. Notably in the knowledge industry, it has been recognized that the values of the future will primarily be associated with intangibles. Mathematics has much to offer in articulating possibilities currently framed in terms of two-dimensional solutions (notably in relation to territorial disputes).
D. What approach offers the greatest potential for the medium-term future?
Metaphoric innovation: Increasingly individuals, groups and societies will identify or design new metaphors to articulate subtler and more comprehensive forms of understanding that will offer them strategic advantages in navigating a complex environment. Some of these will draw on traditional knowledge or the environment itself. In search of helpful metaphors, others will 'mine' the knowledge originally generated by the many disciplines. Already metaphoric innovation is recognized as a key to software and technological development.
Cognitive innovation: For the individual (associated with one or more communities) this will imply considerable variation in sense of identity, and relationship to reality (or to any 'other'). Coherence will be experienced through dynamic processes rather than static frameworks, challenging present legislative and governance procedures. Aesthetic factors will be vital to knowledge organization and comprehension and dissemination of meaningful strategies -- charters will be sing-able and benefit from the theory of musical harmony. ['Sound', 'Smell', 'Taste' and 'Touch' will be as significant as 'Vision' in articulating the future!]
Principles and fields of action
The articulation of the challenges and issues is far from new. Underlying these challenges is a habitual conceptual and institutional response to issues and opportunities that inhibits imaginative innovation of any kind. As such UNESCO is very much a creature of its times and handicapped in its ability to provide any leadership in catalyzing approaches that have not already been proven to have a poor track record.
- UNESCO needs to develop procedures to explore why its habitual procedures continue to fail, rather than relying on excuses associated with limitations of resources and lack of support.
- UNESCO needs to explore why its directive attitude to collaboration with other bodies is relatively unproductive and precludes the possibility of more fruitful modes of collaboration with a wider network of collaborators; in particular this should be seen as a way of ensuring the zero cost collaboration that UNESCO has never been able to develop
- UNESCO needs to explore the institutional implications of strategic nimbleness in a rapidly evolving knowledge-based society
- UNESCO, given its information mandate, needs to explore ways of using web technology to streamline its own institutional processes, rather than simply using such technology as an alternative to its publication and public information programmes; in particular this should be seen as a way of increasing geographical participation, cross-sectoral communications, and more integrative approaches
- UNESCO needs to recognize that many of its challenges as an institution derive from using outmoded hierarchical structures (whether organizational, conceptual, or informational) to respond to situations of non-hierarchical form and complexity; in particular the conflicts that it encounters between specificity of priority focus and generality of preoccupation, between budget restrictions of programmes (especially meetings) and a requirement for geographical representativity, for example, are much better addressed within the higher dimensionality of a web environment
Priority fields of action: As suggested above, there is an inherent problem in deciding on priority fields of action (precluding consideration of others) and therefore effectively 'colonizing the future' and reducing the future degree of strategic maneuverability. This is not only the problem of UNESCO, it is the problem of many institutions. But UNESCO is the intergovernmental body with the mandate to address such policy challenges in a knowledge society. It is not clear why UNESCO should strive for 'prominence' as an objective rather than seek relevant opportunities that, if strategically relevant, would ensure the degree of recognition it merits where that counts.
- Consistent with its long-standing mandate, UNESCO should endeavor to develop a creative position at the evolving interface between knowledge organization, policy formulation, information systems design, and institutional innovation - notably as a means of providing leadership to those faced with the challenges of the 'digital divide' as well as those endeavoring to respond to the complexities of the problematique.
- It is not a question of which fields of action should be a concern for UNESCO but rather of creating a communication context within which fields of action can be identified, profiled, and prioritized on a continuing basis in collaboration with shifting coalitions of actors, as situations evolve. The 'specific role' for UNESCO should be as a catalyst, matchmaker, midwife, or facilitator, rather than seeking some form of directive control as a precondition for any collaboration. In particular UNESCO should avoid a posture of depending on bodies with the energy to lobby it (and the dubious responses this necessitates or occasions in dealing with matters of 'access'), in favour of a proactive approach in seeking out collaboration with committed bodies and placing it in an appropriate context. As the intergovernmental body concerned with the social sciences, UNESCO should recognize its major failure in restricting its attention to civil society to its procedural issues in relating to NGOs; in particular it should take initiative in sustaining serious experiment into alternative modes of social and community organization
- UNESCO has become inappropriately desperate in engaging in relatively costly activities of little relevance primarily because of their supposed public relations purposes. UNESCO needs to avoid entrapping itself in outdated rhetoric concerning certain programmes of questionable impact, especially when this prevents any subtler exploration of alternative strategies that may have greater chance of success
Interdisciplinarity: As the only intergovernmental body with a long-term mandate on this approach, it should be recognized that the initiatives taken by UNESCO in this respect have been extremely limited in comparison with those taken elsewhere. At this point in time, the key to a more fruitful posture is not the traditional focus on agglomerations of concrete issues that can be labeled 'transversal'. Rather it lies in directly addressing the immense opportunities offered by web technology to ensure new kinds of conceptual integration and sustain the programmes and institutional structures in support of them. It is no longer sufficient to bundle several disparate issues together and expect that transdisciplinary insights will magically emerge. The many regional conflict situations (Jerusalem, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, etc) are all indicators of a failure to develop more complex, integrative conceptual frameworks through which new kinds of policy opportunity become evident; again it is UNESCO which has relationships with the appropriate social science and mathematical disciplines, but has failed to take initiative in this respect.
Functions and roles
The functions and roles identified are all highly appropriate for UNESCO. The challenge in practice has been the failure to mesh UNESCO initiatives with those of other bodies. UNESCO has tended to lay claim to initiatives that it initiates, ignoring those of other bodies over which it has no control. The consequence is that the resultant process is of great symbolic value but of questionable significance to other bodies outside UNESCO's direct sphere of influence. It seeks to set standards for those who may well consider themselves inadequately consulted by the processes that UNESCO has been able to initiate.
It is noteworthy that UNESCO has been very slow to take advantage of internet technology to become a genuine 'intellectual forum' and a 'laboratory of ideas', preferring instead to attach these labels to occasional, relatively costly meetings. UNESCO has taken no initiative in adapting internet technology to the challenges of these roles.
With respect to gathering, analyzing and disseminating information, UNESCO has failed to develop appropriate partnerships with bodies that undertake such activity (without UNESCO support), possibly with greater attention to its transdisciplinary dimensions than UNESCO's sectoral bias can ensure. It is regrettable that the cross-sectoral linkages between problems, strategies, values, and organizations in UNESCO's area of interest, are handled with greater sophistication outside UNESCO than in relationship to it - and UNESCO has no process to ensure a relationship to such initiatives (notably via the web).
It is unfortunate that the response by UNESCO to budgetary constraints is to reduce the scope of its programmes rather than to seek strategically more innovative ways of both maintaining their scope and increasing their scope. Again the budgetary advantages of the use of web technology in this respect are ignored, despite its predicted role in the 21st century.
With respect to 'major themes', again it is much less a question of pre-defining the nature of such themes and much more a question of developing a knowledge communication and integration system to permit a variety of themes to be handled as required. It is the outmoded and cumbersome mechanism of consultation, with costly personality figures selected by questionable criteria, that precludes investment in many such processes of greater efficiency and transparency via web technology. Only in this way will it fulfil its role as a genuine 'intellectual forum'.
With respect to 'standard setting', UNESCO could provide extremely valuable guidance on the acceptable parameters in two areas:
- Social experiment. Despite the heavy commitment to 'experiment' as the key to science and technological innovation, no comparable investment is made in social experiment - despite the calls for new forms of sustainable community and the social challenges of the disadvantaged (including those in refugee camps). Consequently there is considerable confusion about what constitutes valid social experiment, whether by groups like Auroville (with which UNESCO has links), Findhorn (Scotland), or more radical experiments by groups readily condemned as extremist sects (even by religious groups with their own centuries-old intentional communities). How are the highly publicized 'failures' of certain 'social experiments' (collective farms, etc) to be assessed, in the light of the methodological approach to 'scientific experiments' where 'failure' is part of the experimental process? How can social experiment be encouraged by new standards, rather than stigmatized?
- Dialogue: This is now a major process in any form of international, inter-sectoral, inter-cultural, or inter-disciplinary development. The term and the process is widely used and abused. Given UNESCO's traditional manadate regarding international conference organization, there is a case for UNESCO to assist in the articulation of the nature of different levels of dialogue, from superficial to fundamental.
With respect to its 'clearing-house' role, it would be useful for UNESCO to review its procedures for determining what clearing-house initiatives are irrelevant to its mandate and how it ensures appropriate relationships with those that are. Despite cordial discussion with a succession of UNESCO DGs, and other officials, some NGOs been unable to develop any fruitful communication with UNESCO concerning its own extensively hyperlinked web databases on international organizations, world problems, strategies, values, human development, or interdisciplinarity - covering in detail the past and current preoccupations of UNESCO and probably those of its future programmes.
With respect to 'national capacity building' in the 21st century, UNESCO could fruitfully explore the implications of web technology to bypass many of the bottlenecks in this process.
With respect to 'cooperation for development' in the 21st century, UNESCO could fruitfully explore the implications of web technology to bypass many of the bottlenecks in this process.
Priority groups: It is unfortunate that UNESCO makes use of military metaphors such as 'targeting' and 'impact' in endeavouring to assess the achievements of its programmes. This distorts the conceptual framework through which appropriate assessments can be made, suggesting the need for 'body count' statistics. It is especially regrettable in the case of women who are sensitive to the manner in which they are targeted by men. As noted above, a communication context is required in which priorities emerge and are reframed as appropriate, especially for the constituencies with resources to act.
UNESCO's Partners: With respect to 'new roles' their emergence should be catalyzed by a new style of web communication rather than being pre-determined.
With respect to 'new measures' to ensure effective participation of groups concerned in UNESCO's work, the serious use of web and internet technology should be explored (as noted above) in the light of an assessment of why it has not explored this opportunity earlier as a major opportunity for the 21st century. The major excuse has now been translated into a preoccupation with the 'digital divide', ignoring the considerable advances achieved and predicted in developing countries in ensuring more effective communication across continents. UNESCO needs to switch from a fixation with providing costly airline tickets for one-off meetings of questionable effectiveness to investing in long-term internet communication with partners so as to provide the basis for a continuing pattern of communication and collaboration.
With respect to UNESCO's 'international vocation', it should be noted that the United Nations system has been committing itself to 'integrated programming in cooperation for development' since the Jackson Report in the late 1960s. UNESCO will succeed or fail in its international vocation to the extent that it shifts its operational and intellectual center of gravity from Paris (as a 'European' organization) onto the web as a virtual institution with only occasional need for symbolic physical meetings. The web was made for the complexity and variety of UNESCO's challenges in a global environment. Its late and conventional adoption of this technology says much about its probability of survival as a leading institution in the 21st century.
With respect to 'decentralization' of UNESCO, the use of web technology is again a key opportunity for new institutional arrangements and patterns of communication and consultation. It is a regrettable indicator of the feedback that UNESCO is likely to receive on the questions raised, when no reference is made to this opportunity in the commentaries leading to the questions. Presumably no feasibility studies have been produced to scope out these opportunities.
Structure of the Draft Medium-Term Strategy and the Draft Programme and Budget
Nature and scope of the medium-term strategy:
- Detailed vs Short report: These are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It might be more useful to have certain sections in greater detail and others briefer and open to subsequent interpretation in the light emerging circumstances. As noted earlier, it is unfortunate that UNESCO should be under pressure to over-determine its strategy in areas which may be rapidly evolving and call for alternative approaches and opportunities and challenges emerge. Furthermore, if the document was understood to be a web document, it could evolve with time, rather than effectively colonizing UNESCO's own future and inhibiting strategic flexibility.
- Fixed or Rolling: Clearly, as argued above, a rolling type document. A combination of the functions listed should be envisaged.
- Adaptive approach: The SISTER approach is a welcome development. However the question of the major issues or themes does not take account of the flexibility articulated in the earlier responses above.
Presentation and structure:
- Structure: Mixed
- Major programmes: Requiring a decision on number is extremely artificial in a rapidly changing environment. UNESCO should be able to use the SISTER framework to reform in response to new needs rather than be locked into a specific pattern dependent on past insights.
- Transdicisplinarity: Idem
- Regional presentation: An electronic document lends itself to being reconfigured in several ways: by major theme/sector, transversally, by region. If it does not, then this is in itself a challenge.
Priorities:
- Distribution of resources: If web facilities are to be considered as under 'communication' then greater emphasis should be placed on communication, since cost reductions for the other programmes should be achieved by greater use of such facilities (meetings, etc). If they are not, then again there is a sever challenge to future operations.
- Fields of action: As argued above, UNESCO is faced with a series of traditional problems on which achieving any significant impact has proved very challenging and which tend to evoke habitual institutional responses. As argued at the beginning of this response, cost-effective strategic breakthroughs need to be sought by reframing the strategic challenge to focus on underlying opportunities susceptible of breakthrough. The challenges UNESCO faces are not necessarily organized in the social environment according to the categories into which UNESCO places them for institutional reasons. UNESCO's programmes easily become a victim of simplistic thinking and the search for tangible results.
- Highlighting UNESCO capital: In arguing for a new pattern of partnerships, UNESCO runs the risk of failing to reframe partnerships within a new strategic context. UNESCO's strength lies in its mandate with respect to the subtleties of culture and the arts, science, the environment, and the nature of the emerging knowledge society. Its weakness lies in the simplistic, outdated thinking about these subtleties into which it is forced by habitual institutional responses that do not reflect the substance of many of its expert meetings - that is not stored in any way that is relevant to decision making in a knowledge society. It should be UNESCO that defines the nature of exciting new patterns of partnership to other institutions that have no mandate to think in these terms. Just as UNESCO failed to distinguish the social phenomenon of 'civil society' because of its administrative preoccupation with 'NGOs', it runs the risk of failing to operate at the appropriate level of complexity in advocating new patterns of partnership. It is how it develops a 'pattern language' and positions itself within these patterns that will establish its position in the eyes of others.
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
