"Empowering Public Wisdom" - The Book

[Jim Rough]

Tom Atlee has a new book to be released on August 7th that I heartily recommend: EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM: A PRACTICAL VISION OF CITIZEN-LED POLITICS ( part of North Atlantic Books Evolver Series).

Because it isn't out yet I've only read a couple of chapters but the book will be very helpful in bringing Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council to a larger audience. The first chapter is posted on the web at "Democracy is about power- at http://bit.ly/EPW-Ch-1

Tom writes with amazing clarity, turning complex concepts of political science, philosophy, sociology, activism, etc. into simple common sense understandings. In the first chapter, for instance, Tom introduces some simple ideas about power ... power-over, power-to, power-with, power-from-within, etc…. and helps us see how society must evolve.

Unfortunately, Tom characterizes choice-creating as being a form of deliberation, which is something he and I differ about. But he defines deliberation much more broadly than I do and graciously acknowledges in the book that I differ with him on this. (See some of our conversation on this at http://www.realitysandwich.com/empowering_public_wisdom#comment-125654. )

In the final analysis, Tom is the ultimate communicator of ideas and a pioneer in helping Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council gain traction in the world. He was one of the first to recognize that DF is a unique from of democratic choice-making, along with voting and consensus. In the end, he's a world treasure whose work will long be celebrated.

Jim

=========

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface: How I came to write this book

Manifesto: A call to establish a legitimate, wise, inclusive, and powerful collective voice of the people

Part 1: A wiser democracy—taking it seriously

1. Democracy is about power—and the people
2. Direct democracy, representative democracy, and their shadows
3. Why we need public wisdom
4. Public wisdom: its role, its sources, and its limitations
5. Citizenship and the random selection of ad hoc mini-publics

Part 2: Making it happen—some pieces of the puzzle

6. Citizen deliberative councils: their character, variety, and history
7. How citizen deliberative councils could and should be used
8. Public empowerment, public engagement, and the role of journalism
9. Polarization, transpartisanship, and public wisdom
10. Wisdom Councils in one hundred cities—with World Cafés, Open Space, and Study Circles to engage the public with the results
11. Deliberation for direct democracy: Citizens Initiative Reviews and the National Initiative for Democracy
12. Empowered public wisdom rising from the grassroots
13. Citizen Legislature: A new branch of government?
14. Protecting the power and integrity of public wisdom
15. What role will you play?

Appendices

1. An annotated list of powerful participatory processes, with links
2. Some areas for research and development

Suggested reading

Index

About the author

==========

EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM - A DESCRIPTION

Beyond elections, public participation, and citizen input, we must find a way to produce wise public policy. In Empowering Public Wisdom, lifelong activist Tom Atlee shows how diverse views can be engaged around public issues in ways that generate a coherent, shared “voice of the people,” infusing the political process with common sense and guiding intelligent decision making.

True public wisdom results when the public—as a whole or in randomly selected mini-publics—engages in learning about, reflecting on, and discussing what needs to be taken into account to produce long-term, inclusive benefits. Such a process, Atlee suggests, moves us beyond partisanship to a place of collective responsibility for our shared destiny.

Atlee presents a wide array of practical solutions, including citizen deliberative councils, conversational processes for mass public participation, and ideas for institutionalizing the power of public wisdom in our government. Combining a broad vision with practical solutions, Empowering Public Wisdom provides a unique and refreshing voice in the political arena.

Atlee’s core approach is through citizen deliberative councils in which a small group of people randomly selected come together as a “mini-public” or a microcosm of the larger population. Such citizen deliberative councils engage in the study of a public issue or concern and make recommendations to public officials and the community, but disband afterward. When new issues arise - or on a periodic basis decided by the community - new councils are formed.

Ultimately, Atlee aims even higher, suggesting a possible fourth branch of government to better balance our current democratic system.

=========

ENDORSEMENTS

No problem facing our society is too great if we can learn to deliberate and act together as We the People. In this practical and visionary book, filled with concrete examples of what works, Tom Atlee shows us how we can harness our collective wisdom to discern the way forward in these complex and challenging times. Inspiring and highly recommended! – William Ury, co-author of GETTING TO YES and author of THE THIRD SIDE

Democracy can’t work if it’s reduced to divisive battles, slogans, and attack ads, mainly driven by big money. But we know what does work: Vast evidence now shows that we citizens, in all our diversity, can think together wisely and work together productively. Atlee helps us envision, in amazing detail, how we can shape democracy we believe in because we’re creating together. – Frances Moore Lappé, author of DIET FOR A SMALL PLANET and ECOMIND

At last someone has described the conditions under which ordinary people can generate real public wisdom. The implications for democracy - especially for democratic handling of our most troubling, complex, and urgent issues – are profound. I urge activists, academics, public officials, and every concerned citizen to heed the call in this book. – Richard Sclove, author of DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY

Tom Atlee reports how citizen deliberative councils can enable ‘we the people’ to speak with collective wisdom on public issues. He also suggests new forms that can embed this wise public voice in real-world democratic governance – a wise and important development for the democracy movement. – Hawaii State Senator Les Ihara, Jr., Senate Majority Policy Leader

In this book, Tom Atlee highlights the seldom noted potential of dialogue and deliberation to generate true public wisdom. He explores how to increase that potential, how to embed it in our democracy, and how to empower it to make a real difference — an important contribution to our field and our political culture. – Sandy Heierbacher, Director, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation

Atlee’s Empowering Public Wisdom serves up a juicy antidote to today’s increasingly intractable issues, political gridlock, and public disengagement. Having used many of the practices Atlee outlines, I can attest to the viability and vitality of the vision he paints and the approaches he proposes on behalf of us all. – Peggy Holman, consultant, author of ENGAGING EMERGENCE: TURNING UPHEAVAL INTO OPPORTUNITY and co-author of THE CHANGE HANDBOOK

==============

SPECS

Paperback: 280 pages, 4.3 x 0.6 x 7 inches

Price: $14.95

ISBN-10: 1583945008 / ISBN-13: 978-1583945001

Amazon link: http://bit.ly/BuyEPW
North Atlantic Books link: http://bit.ly/BuyEPW-NAB


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TO SUPPORT THE CO-INTELLIGENCE INSTITUTE & TOM ATLEE'S WORK...

Please send a donation of any amount -- $10, $25, $50, $100, $500 or more -- to

The Co-Intelligence Institute
PO Box 493
Eugene, OR 97440

or use your Visa or MasterCard - or Paypal - to make an online donation at
http://co-intelligence.org/donations.html

or tell some friends you know about our work, and invite them to support it.

Do let me know when you've mailed a donation, so I can add it to our tally right
away. Including your email address on your check will help me keep track of
your gift.

You can also use the link above to arrange a monthly donation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your donations to the Co-Intelligence Institute are fully tax-deductible
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

________________________________

Tom Atlee, The Co-Intelligence Institute, POB 493, Eugene, OR 97440
http://www.co-intelligence.org / http://tom-atlee.posterous.com
Read THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY - http://www.taoofdemocracy.com and
REFLECTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY ACTIVISM - http://evolutionaryactivism.com
To be published August 7, 2013: EMPOWERING PUBLIC WISDOM
________________________________

[Jim Rough]

Tom, thanks for sharing about your reading and about Yankelovich's questioning of the word "deliberation"! … I love it that he is

"giving primacy to emotional process over the rational consideration of information - and thus his "quirky resistance to the word 'deliberative'"

One point that occurs to me: Among people interested in transforming democracy, those who are rooted in deliberation often don't grasp the larger potential for change that is made possible through choice-creating. To me deliberative strategies aim to educate people and stimulate a values dialogue, heal gaps in communication between officials and the people, and influence elected officials to deliver better, more stable legislation. But for those of us wanting to apply the Wisdom Council (both the Creative Insight Council and the Wisdom Council Process) to society, the aim is to solve the big issues — to save our environment, stop the cycle of wars, shift our economic system away from where money is the ultimate priority, transform our ultimate thinking process, reshape the national story and mythology, build a spirit of national community, empower "We the People" to restructure our institutions, etc. 

When I find myself in a conversation that starts from the deliberative perspective, like with Yankelovich  it's easy for me to lose track of which arena we are talking about because the Wisdom Council also addresses the smaller aim. 

Also, thanks Gillian for showing how Spiral Dynamics might contribute to the larger aim. 

I'm not planning on going to the NCDD conference this year … Darn. There is a conference in Austria the exact same days, which will have a Wisdom Council embedded in it that I will be supporting. This WC was organized by Hemma Spreitzhofer … See http://wayofhope.info/2.WegderHoffnung/Wisdom_Council.php

Jim

On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Tom Atlee wrote:

Thanks for your response, Gillian.

Yankelovich and Friedman are talking about the intentional citizen deliberations organized by National Issues Forums, the largest sustained citizen deliberative activity in the US, which organizes hundreds (if not thousands) of deliberations on a preselected topic each year and reports on the results to Congress and media.  These are relatively short - e.g., a couple of hours - and not randomly selected.  Wisdom Councils and Creative Insight Councils, like Citizens Juries and most other forms of citizen deliberative councils, use randomly selected panelists and usually spend a couple of days to many months in their deliberations.

I know of a few CDCs that have used scientifically selected panelists, chosen specifically for their representative differences. It would be intriguing to do versions where the selection was done according to the proportion of SD's "value memes" in the society.  If successful, it would demonstrate something very interesting, eh?  :-)

Coheartedly,
Tom


On Aug 7, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Gillian Haley wrote:

Thank you for your response, Tom. I'm hearing (reading) that there are two

different arenas for public dialogue. In your response it seemed to me you

were largely taking public dialogue to mean (in this values discussion) a

specific format with a representative sample of

citizens - a format such as DF. I took the paragraph you quoted from p. 28

and p. 38 of Yankelovich and Friedman's book to mean general public

discourse, such as that which occurs before an election.

I would not think to introduce a SD frame into a DF process as it seems to

work very well as is. When it's time to take the results of a DF process out

to the larger public, that's where I see an opportunity for innovation. When

new ideas ripple out of a focused dialogue process and meet those citizens

who weren't present, that's where I was suggesting Robert's work in SD and

communication might be a good fit.

Since you are already familiar with SD, I

won't elaborate except to say that different worldviews can agree on a

course of action, but they will have differing reasons for feeling they

have made a sound choice and that reason is rooted in their values. And I

acknowledge the mysterious common beyond values which can be attained;

gives me goose bumps to think about what more research here might reveal.

Where you say, "My own metaphysics is grounded in interactivity,

co-creativity, dialogue of life with life; I love the word

"co-incarnational" for example, which means that things bring each other

into existence, and "interbeing" which means their ongoing existence is

totally entangled," I'm moved by the beauty these words evoke for me. And I

see this spirit alive in SD, though not often manifest in application where

it is, in a sense, missing.,

Best,

Gillian

--------------------------------------------------

From: "Tom Atlee" <c...@igc.org>

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:58 AM

To: <dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [DF] "Empowering Public Wisdom" - The Book

I am familiar with Spiral Dynamics, but not John Marshall, Gillian.

I think SD is an interesting complement to linguistic strategists like

George Lakoff, helping people frame their messages to appeal to particular

audiences.  That approach is framing for debate or marketing.

Framing for deliberation is different.  It is designed to challenge people

to wrestle with both the bright side and shadow side of their opinions, to

hear the reasonable complexity of others' views, and often to shift their

own.  Dealing at the level of values, and the idea that a solution can

satisfy one value while not satisfying (or even undermining) another, that

kind of framing makes people think deeply and become more humble in their

views.

What interests me is the number of times that practices like DF and

Consensus Conferences can come up with consensus statements agreed to by

randomly selected (i.e., significantly diverse) people.  One would think,

if the levels of SD were so distinct, that this would be impossible (and I

have been told that it is impossible by a values-oriented sociologist,

despite the fact that it happens routinely).  This phenomenon obviously

would benefit from more research.

While there are definitely values profiles that a particular SD level is

most comfortable in and motivated by, it seems to me that at a deeper

level the values are more shared than SD suggests.  I think in deep

dialogue, deliberation and choice-creating, Oranges and Reds can and do

connect with Green values, and vice versa, and find common ground with

which to address public issues.  Furthermore, the common ground is often

related to specific issues; Occupy folks and Tea Party folks in southern

Oregon are coming together around community resilience and self-reliance.

My own metaphysics is grounded in interactivity, co-creativity, dialogue

of life with life; I love the word "co-incarnational" for example, which

means that things bring each other into existence, and "interbeing" which

means their ongoing existence is totally entangled.  I miss that spirit in

SD and Integral work, especially since it has so much potential in

practice. I'd love to see a more powerful marriage of the two worldviews.

Coheartedly,

Tom

On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Gillian Haley wrote:

I look forward to reading your new book, Tom. In reading the excerpts you

pulled from  Yankelovich and Friedman's book, as well as your own

explanation of their writing, I noticed that value choices figure

prominently. In particular I'm referring to the following 2 sections:

(sorry this reply isn't able to change fonts, type or color so I used >

and < to quote)

He sees them as statements of different approaches formulated to

highlight the different values profiles represented in society's

policy discussion of the issue, to stimulate the citizen deliberators

to struggle with the tension between those values to get clarity for

themselves re what THEIR value profile is on that issue is, knowing

that some of their values will not be satisfied by whatever policy

they ultimately choose to profess. But by that time they have (a)

become willing to accept that their choice has costs and they are thus

willing (however reluctantly) to pay those costs and (b) they no

longer think of others who have different views as enemies.<<<

p 28:  "The one requirement for exercising public judgment that the

public needs most (and utterly lacks) is a limited number of credible

choices for working through each of the emotion-laden [issues]...

'Limited' means not more than three or four choices.  I have come to

think of these as VALUE CHOICES, as distinct from policy options of

the sort familiar to technical experts, because the value aspect of

each choice is central."  To this he adds on p 38 "Preparing choices

for public deliberation involves a tremendous amount of work.... From

the public's point of view, the right choices define the issues from

the perspective of VALUES rather than from a technical perspective....

What we're doing is starting from the public's point of

departure....Whether you do it formally or informally, by hunch or

through a formal research process..., you're taking the public's

starting point and framing choices from its perspective....[It is]

essential that the values involved be an important - and explicit -

basis for the choices.  Because that is what citizens are best

qualified to judge."<<<

As a researcher focused on sociopolitical transformation, I've studied

Spiral Dynamics and have a particular appreciation for John Marshall

Robert's book, >Igniting Inspiration<. Spiral Dynamics identifies 8 memes

from which people operate and each of the 8 have a particular set of

values. Robert's book explains the foundational values of each meme along

with the types of arguments for change which are likely to emotionally

reach someone operating from a particular meme.

For example, the Green meme is one of several which are dominant in US

society. Green's core values are humanism and connection. Framing choices

in terms of the human family and equality appeals to them, while dialogue

and feelings are their preferred methods for accomplishing goals. Another

dominant meme, Orange, is turned off by reasoning based on feelings and

equality. Orange's core values are success and profit, while life is a

game to win through the use of good strategy and tactics. It's more fluid

than this cookie cutter example I gave, but the example gives an idea of

different frames required to successfully reach citizens operating from

different memes.

Seemed to me his work would go well with Yankelovich and Friedman's and

thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't heard of it.

Gillian

--------------------------------------------------

From: "Tom Atlee" <c...@igc.org>

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 8:59 AM

To: <dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [DF] "Empowering Public Wisdom" - The Book

Thanks for the thumbs-up, Jim.  I think people will find the book

thought-provoking (and supportive, given my raves about DF and my

proposal of Wisdom Councils in 100 communities).  I'm especially

interested in people picking up on the meme of "public wisdom", with

serious inquiry into what we mean by "wisdom" and what generates it in

the public sphere.

I'm currently reading "Toward Wiser Public Judgment" by Daniel

Yankelovich and Will Friedman (main players behind Public Agenda and

National Issues Forums).  Several quotes reminded me of you - although

Yankelovich's framing is of a collective "learning curve" rather than a

collectively creative activity (which is more your framing).  But his

giving primacy to emotional process over the rational consideration of

information - and thus his "quirky resistance to the word

'deliberative'" reflect yours, and I thought you might enjoy it coming

from one of the paragons of the deliberative democracy movement.  His

use of the word "transaction" also reflects your frame.

Coheartedly,

Tom

p 12  "The prevailing theory sees public opinion formation as a simple

TRANSACTION:  the media provide their audiences with information that is

absorbed as it is transmitted; its content is wholly cognitive.  I may

react emotionally to it, in anger or disgust or with eager enthusiasm.

But the transaction itself is assumed to be a simple, direct matter of

communicating facts, ideas, and opinion, conveyed and absorbed

simultaneously."

p 16  "Information has a role to play, but rarely the most important

one. The key dynamic in public opinion formation is an emotion-laden,

value-driven, time-consuming process of overcoming our natural

inclination to denial and wishful thinking over extended periods of

time."

p. 18  "...the public becomes aware of an issue and begins to take it

seriously...[which] initiates a 'working-through' stage in which the

public begins to confront the need for change, considers the pros and

cons of proposed actions, and wrestles with trade-offs.  In this stage

of the learning curve people struggle to reconcile their positions on

issues with their core values.  In this sometimes stormy process,

emotions play a more prominent role than objective analysis and

deliberation... Rarely does the course of change proceed smoothly.  It

is full of backsliding and procrastination and avoidance."  [This is not

the same as the DF process, but it acknowledges the non-linearity of

conversations that deepen into an issue.]

p 45  "I do have this somewhat quirky resistance to the word

'deliberative,' because it conjures up an image that's too rational, too

deliberative, too thoughtful, too balanced, too reflective.... People's

minds are much more stormy and emotional.  Part of our contribution is

to describe the way people act in real life."

He comes so close to your world, but can't pass through to a place of

co-creating options that, because the are transformational (i.e., leap

into another frame), have fewer trade-offs.  I'm reading the book

because of his use of "public" and "wiser" in the title; I'm similarly

caught with how close he comes to the wisdom focus that I have now.

Although it is in his title, he hardly mentions it in his book, and

never explicitly addresses the question of what it is and how to get it.

I see him as definitely on the leading edge of the mainstream, but still

in a kind of mainstream box.  It makes his work tremendously useful to

reflect and comment on in light of our own (as I am doing in an article

I'm currently working on).

Finally, I want to share something that I learned from this book : that

Yankelovich doesn't intend the 3-4 approaches to an issue that are

provided in briefing books to be policy options the citizen deliberators

must choose among.  In fact, he doesn't see them as policy options at

all. He sees them as statements of different approaches formulated to

highlight the different values profiles represented in society's policy

discussion of the issue, to stimulate the citizen deliberators to

struggle with the tension between those values to get clarity for

themselves re what THEIR value profile is on that issue is, knowing that

some of their values will not be satisfied by whatever policy they

ultimately choose to profess. But by that time they have (a) become

willing to accept that their choice has costs and they are thus willing

(however reluctantly) to pay those costs and (b) they no longer think of

others who have different views as enemies.  I think of this as rather

sophisticated.  Sadly, it lacks the intentionally co-creative dimension

of choice-creating, so that it fails to channel the energy of the

frustration and tensions around values trade-offs into leaps of creative

breakthrough into new ways of thinking about the issue.

p 28:  "The one requirement for exercising public judgment that the

public needs most (and utterly lacks) is a limited number of credible

choices for working through each of the emotion-laden [issues]...

'Limited' means not more than three or four choices.  I have come to

think of these as VALUE CHOICES, as distinct from policy options of the

sort familiar to technical experts, because the value aspect of each

choice is central."  To this he adds on p 38 "Preparing choices for

public deliberation involves a tremendous amount of work.... From the

public's point of view, the right choices define the issues from the

perspective of VALUES rather than from a technical perspective.... What

we're doing is starting from the public's point of departure....Whether

you do it formally or informally, by hunch or through a formal research

process..., you're taking the public's starting point and framing

choices from its perspective....[It is] essential that the values

involved be an important - and explicit - basis for the choices.

Because that is what citizens are best qualified to judge."

It is also interesting to note Yankelovich's background, like yours

(organizational consulting, creativity and Jungian psychology) and mine

(activism, evolutionary science and holistic philosophy).  Yankelovich

says on p 36:  "My background was different from the background of most

people in the polling profession.  I was trained in psychology and

philosophy, not statistics.  From a psychological point of view, the

notion that people are working through issues, struggling with them,

dealing with the rational and irrational at the same time came directly

from studies in personality development.  My background and training in

philosophy gave me a concern for the nature of opinion as knowledge, the

epistemological side of the issue."

Note that on that same page, Will Friedman says, "The process of working

through is not all about loss and coming to terms with it.  There

certainly is some of that - the loss of easy answers, the need to accept

trade-offs and sacrifices. But there is also a sense of building

something new - common ground, creative breakthroughs, new ways of

working together and moving forward - that does not map quite as well to

working through in the sense of loss and grief.  There's a lot that's

fun and liberating about working through as well as a lot that's hard

and harrowing."

Perhaps you can see that there's a lot to work with here, a lot to

connect around, a sense of us all being part of a shared stream, at

different stages and in different dimensions of its larger evolution and

flow...

See you at NCDD...

tom

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to

dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to

dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to

dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.

To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

---------------------    

Jim Rough

Dynamic Facilitation Associates. | 360-385-7118 | j...@dynamicfacilitation.com | 

See www.DynamicFacilitation.com