October 1978
GPID Self-conscientization and in-project demonstration
Some irrelevant questions about the GPID project as a case study
-- / --
Proposed additional "Sub-project 25" of the Goals, Processes
and Indicators of Development project
of the United Nations University on the
occasion of a GPID meeting (Geneva, October 1978):
GPID Self-conscientization
and in-project demonstration
Introduction
Context
This document has been elaborated following the news report (see Annex 1) of the self-immolation by burning of a 24-year old woman in front of the UN Offices in Geneva - hopefully her gesture is not totally wasted. She wished to draw attention to the easily-forgotten point that those who are concerned with remedying the condition of the underprivileged and oppressed often perpetuate, through their own actions and privileges, the conditions for which they claim to be providing remedies. This may also be illustrated by the importance and lack of self-awareness associated with a discussion in a smoke- filled room on "environmental air pollution", and the action and structures required to eliminate it.
Questions
In the interests of brevity, and because of its irrelevance in the current academic mode, this note has been structured in point form. As such the points made are not as fully qualified as would be appropriate in a more extensive review. The points are made in the form of questions where possible.
1. The GPID project is concerned with the goals, processes and indicators of development.
- Is it valid to assume that the matters under discussion have no immediate implications for the structure and processes of the project and its meetings ?
- To what extent is there an equivalence between (a) the problem of examining and responding to the goals, processes and indicators of society and (b) the problems of examining the goals, processes and indicators of development of the GPID project group itself ?
- To what extent do the GPID sub-projects, selected as key areas in relation to human societal development, Identify key areas requiring attention within the GPID project group ? (see Annex 2)
- What is impeding a more rapid development of the GPID project, as well as more immediate impact on its own action ?
- Do the problems of the GPID project group highlight other key issue areas which could usefully be introduced in sub-projects ?
2. What are the consequences of the effective inability to give self-reflexive attention of a substantive nature (rather than administrative and procedural) to the status of a project suchas GPID within society ?
- If the relevance of substantive questions concerning goals, processes and indicators of development cannot be made relevant to the structures and processes of a group such as GPID, can they hope to be rendered relevant to any other social group ?
- To what extent do participants perceive themselves and the project as "meta" to the system under consideration, rather than part of it ?
- Why do the project's structures and processes tend to be organized so that the need and possibility for their own transformation do Dot emerge except as an administrative postscript (relying on conventional administrative procedures) responding to administrative anxiety concerning the productivity, credibility and funding of the project ?
- Why do low expectations so quickly prevail, namely that a projects significance will lie in some "long-tern clarification of questions" and that immediately implementable insights are neither sought nor hoped for, particularly with regard to the project group itself ? Why are immediacy and urgency so easily abandoned ?
3. What are the Implications of the tendency to abstract the project from its social context and the heritage of previous efforts of a similar nature or intent?
- Why do such projects tend to ignore each other, even though the same people may travel directly from a meeting of the one to a meeting of the other ?
- How valid is it to assume that each such project has the privilege of making a "fresh start" and can safelynignore the poor correspondance between the intentions of the originators of past (and other) projects and the manner in which the projects have been received by society and by their successors ?
- Why do such projects protect themselves from constructive attention to negative feedback arising from the controversy or indifference which may surround them, and fail to consider the implications for the project (and the views formulated therein) of the existence of such opposing viewpoints (irrespective of their content) ?
- Why is the existence of hidden dynamics (e.g. concerning who participates and why, or where meetings are held) not considered as of significance for what is consequently discussed and agreed upon? What are the equivalent dynamics and constraints in society as a whole ?
4. Is it acceptable that the group should be unable to move to a new level of debate when faced with discussions having the following characteristics:
- Agreement by some participants that one viewpoint (e.g. universal values) is valid followed later by agreement by other participants that an opposing viewpoint is valid ( This may even involve cycles of expression and abandonment of opposing viewpoints of different chain length (e.g. A-B-C-D-A, or M-N-0-P-Q-R-S-M) to the point that it may be hypothesized that the length of such cycles is chosen so that it cannot be encompassed by the collective attention span of those present (Subjection to such cycles bears some resemblance to the situation identified by the Peter Principle whereby "People are promoted to the level at which they become incompetent" in that collectively a group cannot sustain the attention span to encompass the cycle as a whole and is governed by the sequence of viewpoints in it and the dynamics between them).
- Difficulties in handling opposing viewpoints rationally and the significance for the project of their existence and the procedural adjustments that are required to mediate between then in a meeting
ANNEX 1: MEMORANDUM TO_SOCIAL CHANGE EXPERTS
Parting thoughts of a 24-year old woman prior to self-immolation before UN Offices In Geneva (2 October 1978):
- "A flaming torch in the black night of exploitation"
- "The United Nations represents millions of lives but the delegates prefer lives of luxury to their humanitarian responsibilities"
|
Immolation by Fire at the Palais des Nations La Suisse 3 octobre 1978 |
 |
ANNEX 2: Sub-projectissues and their implications for the goals, processes and indicators of the development of GPlD
A. GOALS
1. Concepts of development
- What is the nature of the "development" of GPID ?
2. Needs
- What are the needs of project participants and how should they be satisfied ?
- How do such needs affect the development of the project ?
3. Rights
- What are the rights of project participants ?
4. Alternative ways of life
- What are the implications for project participants, their behavior together and the organization of the project and its processes ?
- What can be learnt from the factors impeding alternative modes of participant behaviour within the project ?
5. Visions of desirable societies
- What are the alternative visions for the future organization of the project in the light of the visions of desirable societies ?
6. Visions of desirable worlds
- ?
B. PROCESSES
7. Theories of development
- What concepts are relevant to the development of GPID ?
- What lessons can be drawn from the development of GPID ?
- How should the productivity and productive forces of GPID be analyzed ?
8. Expansion and exploitation processes
- What are the implications for participants and the project ?
9. Liberation and autonomy processes
- Do some participants need liberating from dominance relationships; how should this be done; and what can be learnt from the constraints ?
10. Militarization
- What may be learnt from participant attitudes to arming themselves to defend their standpoints in a debate ("verbal ammunition", "violent debate", etc) ?
11. Processes of the UN system
- ?
12. Alternative strategies and scenarios
- What alternative strategies are their for the GPID project and what are their implications for impact on the larger system ?
C. INDICATORS
13. Goals and indicators
- What are the goals of the GPID participants and sub-projects and what are the Indicators of their achievement ?
14. Indicators of territorial systems
- ?
15. Indicators of non-territorial systems
- ?
16. Indicators of ecological balance
- ?
17. The politics of indicators
- ?
D. TOOLS
18. Dialogues
- What can be learnt about dialogues from the problems of eliciting viewpoints of participants which they choose to avoid expressing within the academic debating processes?
- What can be learnt for the dialogues sub-project by considering the questions in this annex ?
19. Networks
- How does the network of communication between participants look?
- How does the mutual relevance network of project issues look, how is it related to participants wider interests, and what is the significance of the difference ?
20. Semiotics
21. Mathematics
- ?
22. Forms of presentation
- What forms do individual participants prefer and what is the significance for the organization of the project and the communicability of its insights ?
23. Methods of analysis
- ?
24. Inter-regional studies
- ?
25. GPID Self-conscientization and in-project demonstration
- What can be concluded from the paradoxes of self-reflexiveness?
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
