Manifesto for a Wiser World (draft*)
"The living world will endure. We humans cannot presume the same. We’ve come this far because we are the smartest creatures that have ever lived. But to continue, we require more than intelligence. We require wisdom.” Sir David Attenborough, from ‘A Life on our Planet’
Summary
Our world is a complex, interdependent network of ecosystems: as a species, we humans are interconnected to — and interdependent on — other lifeforms. Yet we are destroying other species and heating our natural environment to such a degree that we are approaching a tipping point, creating an existential threat to our life on Earth. We need a revolution in our collective thinking and decision making — especially by our governments — in order to radically change course and undo some of the damage we’ve done.
To quote Sir David Attenborough from ‘A Life on our Planet’ again: “In this world, a species can only thrive… when everything else around it thrives, too."
Inspired by the purpose of the First Australian Nhunggabarra nation, as a species, we need to rally behind a collective purpose to 'keep everything alive' (imagine the policies and programs this could lead to!). [1]
Furthermore, based on Professor Geoff Mulgan’s ‘loop’ model of wisdom [2] and the wisdom of the First Australians, we need to make wiser decisions — decisions based on insightful knowledge + responsibility, where responsibility includes ethical considerations (e.g. who decides and benefits?), a long-term view, and presence/engagement with the people and situation. However, the most important features of this model are the outcome feedback loops that involve integrative judgement to continuously and iteratively refine our decisions and actions.
I call the collective purpose to 'keep everything alive' and make wiser decisions the Wisdom Revolution. This Manifesto for a Wiser World will outline what the Wisdom Revolution means in more detail — including next steps to help promote a narrative of respectful connection to each other and our natural world, and to remind everyone that life is a dance or a song, not a race, and it needs to be enjoyed while the music is still playing.
We need a Wisdom Revolution to Survive another Industrial Revolution
According to the World Economic Forum, we are on the cusp of another industrial revolution, the fourth in the series. The first three have helped improve the quality of life for countless people around the world by automating a great deal of (often very dangerous) manual labour, which has gradually freed an increasing number of people to find ways to address fundamental human needs, such as the provision of food and clean water, shelter, sanitation and hygiene, medicines, etc…
However, these achievements have come at an immense cost — one that is now threatening our very existence. Some scientists believe the most likely outcome, with over 90% certainty, is a catastrophic collapse of civilisation [3]. Global warming, species/biodiversity loss, and pandemics are all unintended consequences of the first three industrial revolutions. How can we ensure that we survive another?
The answer is “it depends” — in this case, mostly on whether or not we are capable of learning from the consequences of the first three industrial revolutions. The mindset and behavioural changes required to tame some of our patterns of excessive consumption so that we return to live within the (very real) finite constraints provided by our planetary home will require a radical shift in our collective thinking and the narratives we hold dear. Indeed, this shift will be large enough to warrant the term ‘revolution’ — but one focused on our hearts and minds, rather than our hands. As such, I believe an apt name for this type of shift is the Wisdom Revolution. [4]
Wisdom
Imagine, for a moment, a much wiser world... What does it look like to you?
For me, a wiser world is one where collectively we recognised much earlier the catastrophic consequences of burning fossil fuels to power our lives , and found innovative ways to transition to renewable energy sources and systems across the entire globe.
We would have recognised the value of biological and cultural diversity, and stopped destroying and demeaning each other and our natural environments. Doing so would help prevent pandemics, as we would respect the boundaries needed by wild animals to prevent outbreaks of zoonotic diseases.
And we would have recognised the limitations of financial systems that prioritised short-term profits and externalised critical dependencies, and transitioned to more inclusive and longer-term models that prioritised sustainability and wellbeing.
Of course, hindsight makes it easy to point out the issues we currently face — the key question is how we can make decisions now that we look back on as being wise? And based on the examples above, what do I even mean by wisdom in the first place?
Wisdom is a term that is often dismissed as too esoteric to be of any real, practical value. However, Geoff Mulgan, Professor of Collective Intelligence at University College London, recently published a paper that proposes a new model for wisdom that moves the discourse on wisdom forward in a number of significant ways. Called "Loops for Wisdom”, the key elements or dimensions in this model are cleverness, knowledge, ethics, the long view, and presence — though it’s important to note that "Wisdom is most likely to be recognised where there is a combination of all of these five”. [5] However, the most important features of his new model are the outcome feedback loops that involve integrative judgement to continuously and iteratively refine our decisions and actions.
Loops for Wisdom provides the foundations of a framework for making wiser decisions. However, based on my PhD research and the work I am doing with First (Indigenous) Australians, I believe we can refine and extend it. There is much we can learn from First Australian ways of knowing, doing, and being (which is a more accurate phrase than Indigenous Knowledge) when it comes to making wiser decisions about how to best live our lives. For example, one of the books that greatly influenced me during the early days of my research into cross-cultural design and innovation was: "Treading Lightly: The hidden wisdom of the world's oldest people." [1] A society whose purpose is to maintain the world and keep everybody and everything alive, and has been living that purpose for thousands of generations, is one I believe we should be listening to more carefully.
In the opening section, I summarised wise decisions as those based on insightful knowledge + responsibility, where responsibility includes ethical considerations (such as who decides and benefits), a long-term view, and presence/engagement with the people and situation. The reason I combined ethical considerations, a long-term view, and presence/engagement with people and the situation as 'responsibility' is based on my (limited) understanding of First Australian epistemology. As I wrote in my thesis:
"First Australian knowledge is alive; it is living, dynamic knowledge that is continually being re-negotiated in time and space and often does not lend itself to static, de-contextual written encodings ... Many forms of First Australian knowledge are sacred and only shared under special circumstances with suitably qualified people who understand the responsibility inherent in the knowledge they are sharing" [6].
In other words, in wise societies, knowledge is alive and there are inherent responsibilities associated with it.
Wisdom is sometimes discussed in comparison to data, information, and knowledge, known as the DIKW pyramid or hierarchy. As with all models, this one makes simplifications and has flaws, but it can still provide a useful way of thinking about what makes wisdom different to knowledge, information, and data. This is how I am currently defining them:
Data: the raw facts about something of interest.
Information = Data + Utility, in that the data can be used to inform the making of decisions.
Knowledge = Information + Context, typically provided by lived experience such that we have a deeper understanding of the decisions we are making, and can make generalisations.
Wisdom = Knowledge + Responsibility, in that we have an obligation to ensure we are making decisions that have as much benefit as possible — and the feedback loops are one way of operationalising the assurance that this is taking place.
These definitions appear to be aligned with those discussed in Jennifer Rowley’s review of the DIKW literature [7].
By way of example, consider a long list of the locations of towns and suburbs, as well as the various routes that connect them. This list contains the raw data of interest. Now suppose that you wish to travel from one town to another. If this data were visualised as a map, you would be able to quickly process this data and identify the routes that lead to your desired destination — in other words, through the appropriate representation of the data and the associated mental processing, the data has become useful information (i.e. it has utility) in that it informs your decision making.
Knowledge about the best route provides an additional level of detail, typically through lived experience, which may not be first hand — e.g. a recommendation from a trusted source that a particular route has advantages over another, such as being faster, or offering greater comfort or pleasant scenery. This knowledge is more personal as it involves preferences and judgements.
Wisdom introduces responsibility to the mix, posing questions such as: Do I need to travel in person to the destination, or would a phone/video call suffice? If I do need to be there in person, which path is the most sustainable and has the lowest carbon emissions? How else might I use this trip to benefit myself, others, and the world in general?
Now if my understanding of First Australian epistemology leads to a crude definition of Wisdom = Knowledge + Responsibility, and Geoff Mulgan defines wisdom as consisting of cleverness, knowledge, ethics, the long-view, and presence, and I group cleverness and knowledge together as insightful knowledge, then by equivalence, responsibility = ethics, the long-view, and presence. But does it seem reasonable to equate responsibility with ethics, the long-view, and presence?
Dictionary definitions of responsibility contain references to moral obligations to behave correctly, to be reliable and trustworthy. As such, equating responsibility with ethics, the long-view, and presence appears to be aligned with these definitions. At the very least they are not in obvious opposition or conflict, though I acknowledge these arguments are somewhat loose and require further interrogation (which is beyond the scope of this manifesto).
A compatible and more succinct definition of wisdom is provided by Jennifer Rowley: "The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behaviour, taking into account what is known (knowledge) and what does the most good (ethical and social considerations).” [8]
Another aspect that I think is worthy of further exploration is if/how Loops for Wisdom captures the importance of the interconnectedness of all things. Geoff Mulgan notes that "institutional wisdom is best understood in terms of the combination of ethos, leaders, and the internal organisation of intelligence, alongside a wider division of labour that generates wisdom as an emergent property of their interaction" [9]. The First Australian worldview is one that understands the world as a complex system (e.g. First Australians have a relational ontology), so their worldview is highly compatible with many of the assumptions, beliefs and principles of complex adaptive systems in the Western discourse [10]. Would making the interconnection of all things more explicit, through the science of complex adaptive systems or otherwise, help explain why wisdom should be understood as a process of making better decisions; a process that requires feedback loops in order to do so?
I believe that wisdom entails understanding complexity in all of its apparent messiness — not necessarily reducing or simplifying it. Wise people should also be able to sit patiently with discomfort and embrace paradoxes as sources of learning and inspiration.
Another area I would like to investigate is how the Capability Approach (CA) [11] — a normative framework of social justice and ethics which asserts that human development should be concerned with the expansion of freedoms to live a valued life [12] — may be able to support/complement the proposed model for wisdom. Questions such as "wisdom for whom?” or “who decides if the future is better?” lend themselves to the evaluatory framework provided by the CA. The CA also encourages ongoing deliberative participatory processes to identify the valued freedoms, which aligns with the outcome feedback loops that involve integrative judgement.
A Wisdom Revolution then is one that values and considers wisdom in our everyday decision making, especially on matters that have wide impact. For it to be effective, wisdom will need to become more systemic and institutionalised. Geoff Mulgan summarises the role of wise institutions “is to be influencers on other more powerful institutions, and they are expected to reason ethically, to understand multiple perspectives and to take a long view, in each case more than mainstream institutions” [13]
The good news is that there are already a number of examples of people and organisations who are helping to create a wiser world. I am humbled to have an honorary role with one institution that is taking a wise approach to the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). In the words of the Australian National University School of Cybernetics founding director, Distinguished Professor Genevieve Bell: “We know that Ai-powered cyber-physical systems (CPS) will scale in society. The challenge we face now is how we do that responsibly and sustainably? If we act proactively now, we can avoid some of the negative impacts we have seen during other technological leaps.” [14] More broadly, the discourses and movements associated with responsible AI and responsible research and innovation [15] can also be seen as examples of wisdom in action.
[Aside: I am currently working on a separate note on how co-design can help ensure research and innovations are responsible - in other words, co-designing a wiser world.]
Interestingly, all research and innovation is designed, in that they require the capacity to envision a non-existent or undiscovered part of the world to a level of complexity that is not obvious based on the local environment, and then attempts to realise it. My research on the First Australian design paradigm suggests that the responsibility that is inherently associated with knowledge will naturally result in responsible research and innovation. Are there ways we can learn from FA epistemologies to incorporate responsibility with our knowledge systems such that they naturally flow through to the research and innovations?
More generally, why isn't wisdom more widely valued today?
Wisdom requires taking a more holistic view, so it's largely incompatible with the reductionist approach to science, as discussed in the next section.
Restoring the Balance between Reductionism and Holism
The golden age of reductionism refers to a period of time from around the 1700s to present day, in which the dominant paradigm of scientific inquiry is one where the objects, systems, or phenomena of study are broken down into simpler component parts. This age resulted in myriad scientific breakthroughs that have improved the quality of life of countless people around the world. A key principle of reductionist thinking is understanding and categorising the simpler component parts in terms of what they are, what they are not, and how they interact. The influence of this paradigm Is reflected in the subject delineations that children learn in school, the academic disciplines at universities, and the associated professions in the workplace.
The opposing paradigm to reductionism is holism, in which systems and certain complex phenomena can only be studied as a whole, as they exhibit emergent behaviour that cannot be fully explained by analysis and modelling of the simpler component parts. Systems theory, Cybernetics, and the study of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) are examples of approaches to scientific inquiry that fall within the holism paradigm. In the education context, this paradigm is reflected in project or problem based learning, in which students draw on a range of traditional subjects/disciplines to solve a particular problem that typically spans multiple domains. In the workplace, there has been a growing recognition for the need to adopt cross-functional teams to solve problems and address issues that again span multiple domains of knowledge (for example, see the Agile Manifesto).
Ideally, these two opposing paradigms of scientific inquiry would be seen as equals and balance each other, so the most appropriate paradigm is chosen for each situation (though in some cases, the inquirers may need to oscillate between the two, as suggested by metamodernism [16]). Oftentimes, that is what happens.
Unfortunately, during the golden age of reductionism, the balancing influence of holism was largely absent, and all objects, systems or phenomena of study were viewed through the reductionist paradigm. Consequently, there are still many examples of complex social systems that are still overly influenced by reductionism, such as with our health, education and political systems, but also in business and management/leadership.
Moreover, across Western societies in particular, people are not sufficiently aware of the complex nature of so many aspects of our daily lives. The Western world has become chronically fragmented, with ever increasing numbers of people feeling isolated and lonely. These feelings often breed resentment and anger towards others they perceive as causing or contributing to their suffering, leading to an increasingly polarised society.
The digitisation of our social world — for example, through social media and social networking platforms — can contribute to the feelings of loneliness and polarisation. These websites and apps can diminish our authentic identity, reduce human-to-human interaction, and reinforce polarising messages through filter bubbles that are powered by algorithms designed to maximise your attention.
Indeed, possibly the greatest casualty of the golden age of reductionism has been our sense of connection — to each other and the natural environment. We no longer recognise our shared humanity or the natural ecosystems upon which we are dependent; instead, we focus on the differences and continue to exploit the natural environment with little consideration to the damage we are doing to ourselves, each other and to future generations.
I am reminded of the proverb about the two wolves that live inside each of us — one kind and compassionate, and the other fearful and angry — and how the choices we make feed one of these wolves. If we look for differences in others so we can resent and blame them, we will find it. Likewise, if we look for common ground so we can connect and learn from each other, we will also find it. By neglecting the holistic paradigm, Western society has unintentionally over-fed the wolf of fear and anger. We need to restore the balance between these two wolves, and feed the wolf of kindness and compassion by recognising our shared humanity and the natural ecosystems upon which we are dependent and interconnected. This is something our First, or Indigenous, Peoples can help with, as they are often less likely to have forgotten how interconnected we all are in the first place.
A Narrative based on Connection
Returning now to the Wisdom Revolution, and specifically the 'revolution' part. All revolutions are powered by narratives that engage the hearts and minds of the people, in order to create enough systemic change to justify using the term ‘revolution’ in the first place. So what narrative will best help drive and promote the Wisdom Revolution?
My suggestion is to start with a narrative based on respectful connection. This narrative would recognise and celebrate the connections and inter-dependencies between humans, and all other species on this planet, and acknowledges our shared responsibility to maintain and support the health of our collective home — the Earth. Crucially, it simultaneously values our commonalities whilst respecting and celebrating our diversity. We need to be able to draw on the myriad diverse ways of knowing, doing and being to be able to better understand the complex issues and challenges we face, so we can find the most effective and wisest ways to address them. Diversity is essential for creativity and innovation, but it requires respect to be harnessed in this way. Recognising our common humanity and connection with all things can help provide the necessary foundation for responsible innovation.
A narrative based on respectful connection will also emphasise collaboration over competition, restoring a balance between the two that has become warped towards competition by those in favour of unregulated market forces. It will also emphasise (internal, shared) responsibility over (external, individual) accountability. Indeed, the qualities that are emphasised by a narrative of connection align with the ‘human design specifications’ (HDS) promoted by organisational psychologists Alicia Fortinberry and Bob Murray [17]. Our HDS are the biological predispositions that have evolved over millions of years and are encoded in our DNA, so they aren’t easily changed. For example, we have evolved to be mutually interdependent and live in small, mutually supportive bands, whereas we tend to live in large cities and suffer from chronic isolation and loneliness; we have evolved to make decisions on the basis of emotional and relationship needs — not facts or reason; and we have evolved to have fun, to enjoy what we do, to laugh while working together — something most of us rarely experience.
So how does this narrative apply to the future? Historian and author Yuval Noah Harari has noted that the narrative of liberal democracy that has dominated the most economically developed nations on earth since the end of the cold war is under attack by "religious and nationalist fantasies” that seek to exploit the growing populations of the disillusioned and the discontented. Whilst he believes we should defend liberal democracy from such exploitative fantasies, he also thinks "we need to question the traditional assumptions of liberalism, and develop a new political project that is better in line with the scientific realities and technological powers of the 21st century.” [18]
I agree that big data, AI, CPS and other “scientific realities and technological powers of the 21st century” have unprecedented potential to radically change our world, and we need to make sure these technologies are designed and deployed responsibly and wisely. I propose the best way to do this is through the reinforcement of our shared humanity — and our shared existence — via our connection to each other and all other things.
It is important to note that the narrative of connection is compatible with the narrative of democratic liberalism. Indeed, there are some versions of the narrative of democratic liberalism that already incorporate elements of a narrative of connection. My hope is that by making the narrative of connection more explicit, more people will realise the importance of mutual understanding and respect, and the value of working together, rather than succumbing to polarising forces that are working to drive us all apart, weakening everyone. Over time, the narrative of respectful connection may evolve to be more directly concerned with wisdom, but for now at least I believe this narrative is a good place to start.
Life is a Dance, not a Race
There’s another story that I’d like to discuss now. This one was pointed out to me in a yarn with the late Dr Yunupingu. In my thesis I wrote: "the Yolngu perceive Western society to be always rushing forward in the name of progress with little regard to the consequences, especially to the natural environment and the wellbeing of the Yolngu and other First Australians.” [19] I have reflected on this point many times over the years: specifically, why are we rushing, and towards what?
I believe we are rushing forwards because we feel that we are in a race — a competition to beat other people. And I believe we feel we are in a race is a consequence of the ideology of neoliberalism. According to writer and environmental activist George Monbiot:
"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.” [20]
If competition is the defining characteristic of human relations, then we are in a race — a race against each other, that we are constantly trying to win, or at least not to lose. Research has found that “the desire for status is a fundamental human motive”, but when status is predicated on the accumulation of wealth, then everyone is in a race to buy a house, then another house, a newer car, a bigger TV, a smarter phone, et cetera.
The winners of this race are, of course, the wealthy. According to Forbes, there are 2,755 billionaires in the world today, worth $12.7 trillion. But there are also 3.4 billion people who are struggling to meet basic needs. And inequality is increasing — according to the UN, rising inequality is affecting more than two-thirds of the globe. In other words, the winners in this race are taking more of the wealth at the expense of the billions of losers. Yet according to the neoliberal ideology, the rich deserve their wealth, and the poor their suffering.
Surely we can do better than this?
Some people think we just need to make the race more fair, as there are a range of socio-politico-economic factors that mean we are not all running the same competition. But it still involves a race. What if the billionaires are winning the wrong game, instead?
What if there is no race?
The story of the Easter Bilby by Ali Garnett and Kaye Kessing [21] can help illustrate my point. In this story, the Easter Bunny in Australia is sad because he is too old and tired to do his job, but the other rabbits aren’t interested in taking over. Bilby offers to deliver the eggs instead, but Flash Rabbit believes he should have the job so he can become famous. The wise old Easter Bunny gives them both a basket of eggs to see what they will do. Flash Rabbit thinks it is a race so he speeds off to find his friends and throws a big party to eat them all. He then falls asleep. Bilby takes it much slower and delivers the eggs to all creatures, and takes care to spread the message of hope and new life. As you may have guessed, it wasn’t a race, and the wise old Easter Bunny gives the job to Bilby.
In this story, Flash Rabbit could represent Western society, as he is focused on winning the race; whereas Bilby represents the First Australian societies, that prioritise the care and respect for all creatures.
So if life isn’t a race, what is it?
According to philosopher Alan Watts, “it was a musical thing, and you were supposed to sing or to dance while the music was being played.” [22]
In other words, life isn’t a race (or even a journey) — instead, it's a dance or song that needs to be enjoyed, preferably while the music is still playing :)
This analogy is likely to resonate with First Australians, as their knowledge is not only alive, it is also performative, as per the following quote from ethnographer Deborah Bird Rose:
"Knowledge is graded by age, some of it is demarcated by gender, and almost all of it is identified with country. It points to country and to relationships between the possessor of knowledge and the country to which it refers. Performance of knowledge (through song, dance, story, history and use of country) is a performance of identification and responsibility: it marks the person as one with rights and responsibilities to that country." [23]
Imagine then, if status was determined by wisdom, kindness, and the quality of one's connections, instead of material wealth — noting of course that humility is one of the defining characteristics of wisdom, as without it one is not open to learning more.
It's important to note that changing the analogy from a race to a dance in the story we share about (economic) interactions doesn't eliminate competitive behaviour. Research shows that even though humans can be both cooperative and competitive, we are a naturally more cooperative species [24]. However, the balance between the two depends on the local norms — if people find themselves in a highly competitive environment, they will respond in kind. In other words, it is possible to choose the analogies in the stories we share, but only if enough people are aware that the choice exists in the first place. If we don't, and we live in societies that are guided by neoliberal ideology, competition is easily the dominant force, and history has shown there will be many more losers than winners in the race.
Nor am I advocating for centralised price controls or any other mechanisms that have proven not to work. Free markets may still have a critical role to play in the provision of many goods and services, but they shouldn’t be seen as the only mechanism for all things. For example, one of the best education systems in the world is Finland, where the best school is simply the closest school. Instead of promoting competition between schools, the Finnish government has chosen to promote the status of the teaching profession and provide them with the compensation, resources, and autonomy to ensure all teachers are capable of providing the best quality education for their students. In other words, education services are provided by a strong and trusted public sector. Similar arguments can be made for health services. The US has aggressively implemented neoliberal policies in the health sector, and it has the worst health care outcomes of industrialised countries, despite spending considerably more [25]. Of course, Finland and the other industrialised countries mentioned in the health care comparison all use free markets for the delivery of most goods, labour, and other services. The point is not to assume that “one size fits all”, as it very rarely does.
Cultivating the required self-awareness to understand the stories and analogies you believe about life about takes time and effort, but the rewards are worth it. For example, it's a lot easier to establish kind, respectful connections if you are secure and comfortable in your understanding of who you are. Perhaps it isn't surprising that cultivating self-awareness doesn't receive the attention it deserves in education systems that are influenced by neoliberal ideology, which instead focus on ranking students via standardised testing. To that end, the next section will briefly discuss the trio of identity, education, and wisdom.
Identity, Education, and Wisdom
What should the purpose of education be?
Naturally, there are many answers to this question. According to Pasi Sahlberg, one of the architects of the highly successful Finnish education system, the purpose of the Finnish education system is "the learning, wellbeing and happiness of all children for common good.” [26]
There is a lot to like about the purpose of the Finnish education system, from the inclusion of more holistic and emotional aspects in wellbeing and happiness, to the implied cohesion with the objective of a common good. However, there is also much here we can learn from First Australians, specifically that the purpose of education should be about understanding ourselves -- our identities -- and how we relate to other people in different social contexts. Indeed, our wellbeing and happiness, and our understanding of how we can best contribute to the common good, appear to be dependent on (or at least intimately related to) our understanding of ourselves.
A better understanding of who we are is also necessary for developing our sense of autonomy and the intrinsic motivation that cultivates a love of learning. There is a common saying in education that the only real learning is self learning. The question of motivation in education -- how to cultivate a love of learning -- has been explored for decades, and includes insights from self-determination theory (such as intrinsic motivation and the need for autonomy support and interpersonal involvement), the importance of belonging, "a meaningful, well-taught curriculum", and "opportunities for choice and self-evaluation that foster students' ownership of learning” [27], among others. As such, questions about the purpose of education and identity appear to be intertwined with questions about motivation and cultivating a love of learning. A quick scan of the literature suggests as much [28], though considerable further investigation is also required. Sample questions include:
How can our education systems, platforms, tools and experiences better help people understand who they are and cultivate their love of learning?
What is the relationship between a person's understanding of who they are and their love of learning?
How well do people at different stages of their lives understand their different identities and who they are, and how can we best find this out?
How can we help people to better understand themselves, their different identities, and how they relate to others in different social contexts?
How aligned do people find their identities, values, and goals with their current studies or jobs?
How can people identify the learning opportunities that will help them transition to jobs or roles that are better aligned?
What are the experiences we can design that create the kinds of respectful interactions that challenge, broaden, and deepen our understanding of important topics?
Of course, there is also the question: Do people who better understand themselves and/or have a love for learning make wiser decisions?
There are good reasons to start helping young people explore their identities, values, and goals once they are capable of non-trivial conversation, as it will help them develop the skills and practices required throughout their lives to continually refine their understandings of who they are, and the why, what and how they love to learn. Furthermore, meaningfully engaging and including young people in the decision-making process can help with the long-view for decisions made today, as you will hear first-hand how these decisions will affect our children and grandchildren. Many of us will have met young people with wisdom far beyond their years, and elderly people with what appears to be comparatively little wisdom. Age provides people with opportunities for the cultivation of wisdom, but does not determine its effectiveness.
By way of example, one of the most inspiring and revolutionary education programs I have encountered is Design for Change (DFC), which was founded by Kiran Bir Sethi in India in 2009. DFC empowers children to change the world in meaningful ways by following the 'Feel, Imagine, Do, Share' (FIDS) framework, which is essentially a model of design thinking applied to empower school children. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to visit the Riverside School in Ahmedabad, India, that was founded by Kiran to help empower children with DFC and other programs. I was astonished to meet so many children who were so confident in being themselves. The only other time I have experienced this was when visiting some of the homelands schools in remote First Australian communities who still follow traditional education practices, alongside the mainstream Australian curriculum. These experiences highlight the need to change the way we educate our children. We need to identify, promote, implement, and support programs like DFC that can help empower children to explore their passions and imagination, instead of sifting their creativity with standardised testing and competitive rankings.
Regardless of the age at which they occur, experiences that encourage people to explore their identities and love of learning appear to be aligned with the first discipline of ‘personal mastery’ as described by Peter Senge in his book "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization" [29]. In this book, Senge articulated the idea of a 'learning organisation’: based on systems thinking (which is very similar to holistic thinking as described above), a ‘learning organisation’ is one that promotes and supports the ongoing learning of its members and continually transforms itself in order to remain competitive. The ‘fifth discipline’ from the title of the book is ‘systems thinking’, which integrates the other four disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, building a shared vision, and team learning. Having already discussed the possible connections with the first and fifth disciplines, I will now discuss the third discipline — building a shared vision — and what it means for leadership, strategy, and culture in the context of making wiser decisions.
Leadership, Strategy, Culture, and Wisdom
The 5R leadership program from the University of Queensland is underpinned by evidence and theory that shows that leadership requires the careful cultivation, nurturing and realising of a shared social identity that will help realise the shared vision. This program helps participants understand what it takes to be an effective leader, but there is also a dark side to social identity leadership that is openly discussed in the program to help participants understand the difference between effective leadership and good (or wise) leadership. Wise leadership needs to be effective, but also aligned to the broader purpose to 'keep everything alive' that is based on respectful connections. Therefore, one way to think about wise leadership would be to include an additional R for Respectful connections, alongside the other 5 existing 'R's: Readying, Reflecting, Representing, Realising, and Reinforcing.
More generally, I have learnt that leadership, strategy, and culture are three sides of a triangle, in that they have a different focus but all three are required for an organisation to achieve its goals and purpose. Interestingly, research has shown that most organisational strategies fail [30]. Also, according to MIT Innovation Lab co-founder, Dave Richards:
"When we say culture trumps strategy, what we’re really saying is that strategies need to engage and consider people and their psychology. I call this ‘bridging’ between the soft human stuff of psychology (attitudes, beliefs, biases, behaviors, motivations, etc.) and the hard stuff of strategy (intelligence, decisions, crucial leadership focus and direction, measured results, and required course changes)." [31]
In other words, leadership strategy should pay attention to improving organisational culture as well as the more traditional aspects such as focus and direction. However, culture is an emergent phenomenon so isn’t something that can be targeted directly — instead, the focus should be on ways to improve the quality of relationships and connections between all staff, clients and other stakeholders, and the broader community (a common theme in this manifesto).
Conclusion and What Next?
This manifesto is calling for a Wisdom Revolution — to move beyond the making of smart or intelligent decisions, to making wise decisions that are based on insightful knowledge and responsibility. There are so many ways this can happen in myriad different contexts that it would be impossible to list them all here, but here are some general suggestions based on the discussion in this manifesto.
If we agree that the purpose of humanity should be to help "keep everything alive", then how well aligned are the purposes of the organisations for which we work, and do they actually live their purposes? If not, are there any responsible actions we can take to help shift things in this direction, or are there other organisations that are better aligned?
We should also focus on promoting a narrative of respectful connection, and to remind people that life is not a race, it’s a dance or song that needs to be enjoyed while the music is still playing.
This manifesto also acknowledges that this is just the beginning, with many areas that require further investigation. As such, it’s impossible to say what the future holds, but it will need to be accessible and practical. For example, we probably don’t need Chief Wisdom Officers — instead, we need to find ways for everyone to value the respectful connections we have with each other and the natural environment, and the responsibility associated with knowledge (and action).
We will also need stories and frameworks to help operationalise wisdom and make it more real and accessible to everyone, and to identify some ‘low hanging fruit’ to start. One suggestion in the business/finance world would be to design and develop a framework to help people make wiser decisions that can help ensure that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives don’t just become the latest wave of greenwashing.
And of course, more thought needs to be given to how we might measure the benefits of wiser decision making on society. Suggestions are welcome and encouraged — after all, revolutions don’t just happen by themselves.
*Disclaimer
This draft is an attempt to combine a number of related but separate notes I’ve written over the past few years, and some new ones, into a single, coherent narrative. It is still a work in progress so the coherence may be questionable, and some of the arguments need to be tightened — or may even be flat-out wrong. And the references need to be tidied up. But hopefully it provides a reasonable sense of what I’m trying to share with this manifesto. Please let me know how you think I can improve it.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Notes
[1] Sveiby & Skuthorpe (2006), p. 7
[2] Mulgan (2021)
[3] See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6, and also: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/01/sixth-mass-extinction-of-wildlife-accelerating-scientists-warn, and https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0
[4] Though perhaps a more accurate name would be the Wisdom Rediscovery, as for thousands of years Homo Sapiens - Latin for Wise Man - was able to live in harmony with nature and abide by these constraints. In recent times, we have allowed ourselves to be deluded by the myth that we are no longer subject to these constraints.
[5] Mulgan (2021), p. 12
[6] Nichols (2015), p. 129
[7] Rowley (2007)
[8] Rowley (2006), p. 257
[9] Mulgan (2021), p. 20
[10] Tyson Yunkaporta has written on this point in considerable detail in his book "Sand Talk" — see Yunkaporta (2019).
[11] See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach, though other ethical frameworks may also be applicable.
[12] As noted in my thesis: "The literature suggests there are two main reasons the capability approach is applicable as an evaluative framework for exploring issues with Indigenous peoples. First, the multi- dimensional nature of the capability approach is compatible with the intrinsically holistic view shared by Indigenous peoples, and second, the explicit provision for Indigenous peoples to define their own capabilities.” (Nichols, 2015, p. 80)
[13] Mulgan (2021), p. 19
[14] You can listen to the recording of this speech by Distinguished Professor Genevieve Bell at: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/genevieve-bell-the-4th-industrial-revolution/id186908455?i=1000489440574
[15] The Responsible Research and Innovation approach adopted by the EU’s Framework Programmes and the ‘broader impacts’ from the US National Science Foundation are examples of initiatives that strongly align with the need for wiser decision making. See Davis & Laas (2014) for a comparison of the EU and US models.
[16] See: http://www.metamodernism.com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/ and https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/theory-knowledge/202004/what-is-metamodernism
[17] Murray & Fortinberry (2019)
[18] See: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy
[19] Nichols (2015), p. 139
[20] See: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
[21] Garnett & Kessing (1994)
[22] This quote is from "Coincidence of Opposites" in the Tao of Philosophy lecture series, courtesy of Alan Watts Org. See: https://www.awakin.org/v2/read/view.php?tid=2212
[23] Rose (2000), p. 41
[24] Bowles & Gintis (2011)
[25] Schneider et al., (2021)
[27] Lumsden (2009)
[28] Haslam (2017); Renninger (2009); Roeser, Peck & Nasir (2006)
[29] Senge (1997)
[30] Kaplan & Norton (2001)
References
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). A Cooperative Species. Princeton University Press.
Davis M, Laas K. (2014) "Broader impacts" or "responsible research and innovation"? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Sci Eng Ethics. 20(4):963-83. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9480-1
Garnett, A. & Kessing, K. (1994). Easter bilby. Canberra, Australia : Anti-Rabbit Research Foundation of Australia : Australian Nature Conservation Agency. See: https://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn7899125
Haslam, S. Alex. (2017). The social identity approach to education and learning: Identification, ideation, interaction, influence and ideology. In K. I. Mavor, M. J. Platow, & B. Bizumic (Eds.), Self and social identity in educational contexts(pp. 19–51). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315746913-ch2
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.
Lumsden, L. (2009). Student Motivation: Cultivating a Love of Learning. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207.
Mulgan, G. (2021). Loops for Wisdom: How to bridge the wisdom gaps in the life of citizens, governments and societies. Demos Helsinki. https://demoshelsinki.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Loops-for-Wisdom.pdf
Murray, B. & Fortinberry, A. (2019). The Human Science of Strategy: what works and what doesn’t. Ark Group. ISBN: 9781783583829.
Nichols, C. D. (2015) Discovering Design: Enhancing the Capability to Design at the Cultural Interface Between First Australian and Western Design Paradigms. PhD Thesis. The University of Sydney. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/13361
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model. Educational psychologist 44, no. 2 (pp. 105-118).
Roeser, R. W., Peck, S. C., & Nasir, N. S. (2006). Self and Identity Processes in School Motivation, Learning, and Achievement. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 391–424). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Rose, D. B. (2000). The power of place. In S. Kleinert & M. Neale (Eds.), The Oxford Companion To Aboriginal Art And Culture (pp. 40-49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rowley, J. (2006) Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge? Journal of Documentation 62 (2) pp. 251–70.
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33 (2) pp. 163–180. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506070706
Senge, P. M. (1997). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency, ISBN 0-385-26094-6.
Schneider, E. C., Shah, A., Doty, M. M., Tikkanen, R., Fields, K., & Williams II, R. D. (2021). Reflecting Poorly: Health Care in the US Compared to Other High-Income Countries. The Commonwealth Fund. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Schneider_Mirror_Mirror_2021.pdf
Sveiby, K. E., & Skuthorpe, T. (2006). Treading lightly: The Hidden Wisdom of the World’s Oldest People. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. See: https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/cultural-studies/Treading-Lightly-Karl-Erik-Sveiby-and-Tex-Skuthorpe-9781741148749
Yunkaporta, T. (2019). Sand talk: How Indigenous thinking can save the world. Text Publishing. Chicago.