Applying a Solution Focused Approach to Politics - Anyone want to help?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Werner Winkler on August 29, 2010 at 11:57am

Hallo Matt,

I tried to discuss this about a year ago in the SF-Organisations-List and was told, that this is no subject there.

Because I am very interested in politics and work with SF since my training in 1997 (with Steve and Insoo) I see a natural and neccessary combination between both, but until today I have had no real success with it here in Germany, but yet there is hope :) as always.

For example: I asked myself "When was the last time, our earth was 'okay'?" (looking for an exeption and the difference between then and now). And the answer came very easy and simple: about 10.000 years ago, when there where no big cities and very less people living here ...

I like to hears about your thoughts and attempts.

Werner

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Gibson on August 29, 2010 at 1:59pm

Hi Werner,

I am surprised they said that there was no subject in its application to politics? I think that it is very relevant and can teach politics a lot. I believe that there is scope to look at forming collaborative relationships between politicians and citizens, setting achievable and realistic goals, setting tasks between government and citizens (increasing responsibility), exceptions for when services are working better, focusing on positive small changes rather than large overwhelming issues etc. I just think the scope is quite large.

I have had a look at some of the issues see:
Collaboration: http://solutionfocusedpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/collaborati...

Doing What Works: http://solutionfocusedpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/doing-what-...

Goals: http://solutionfocusedpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/lib-dems-sh...

Reframing: http://solutionfocusedpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/reframing-v...

I would love to hear more about your thoughts on the subject. How about writing something for solutionfocusedpolitics.wordpress.com ?

Matt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katalin Hankovszky on August 29, 2010 at 4:14pm

Dear Werner, I'm scared by your definition of 'OK' and unsure how does it guide and help us in thinking/acting on earth if the answer goes back to people-less times. I was lately very much inspired by the views of Matt Ridley, who compares times like 50 years ago and now and detects development in all fields of prosperity on earth. maybe worth checking it out? Werner, for you (in German): http://dasmagazin.ch/index.php/optimisten-brauchen-diesen-text-nich... Also from him in engl.: http://blog.ted.com/2010/07/14/when_ideas_have/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Werner Winkler on August 29, 2010 at 5:50pm

@ Matt: After reading the interview, that Katalin has posted (thank you!) I think I understand you a little bit better - and also the differences between your way of seeing things and mine, which I will try to explain:

Some years ago, during a SF-training, I played a client calles "Mother Earth" and the participants played "The SF-Counsellor" (together, like I learned it from Steve). Mother Earth complained about her condition. The counsellors asked her about her goal or an exceptional time, when things were at last "okay" (for her and ALL the living beings on her). After a while she answers, that this time of exception was about 10.000 years ago before mankind startet their growth by planting seeds and building cities - the last millions of years Mother Earth observes species coming and going, some staying. But in no time one single species has tried to conquer the whole world and use all the natural ressources for its own.

So we asked Mother Earth what she would suggest, if her goal were to have again an acceptable number of homo sapiens? Her answer said that if we (the people that live on her and from her) will not solve the problem by ourselves, she will do it without any doubt with any help she can get ... first we were scared (like Katalin) but then we use the art of mathematics and calculate the following: if every women on earth (for the next 200 years or so) will aggree to have (in average) only one child, things will become better and better - like you, Matt, hope.

In other words and by using a well-known metaphor in a different way: I see no sense in cleaning the rooms of the Titanic or teaching the captain how to think in a SF-way if his passengers multiply themselves again and again and when it is obvious that in less than 100 years there will be nor space nor food nor water enough for all of them. In such an case the first problem that should be solved is: how to make people understand that there is a need to stop their wish "to fill the boat"?

If that change is on its way I am shure their are lots of problems that like to be solved in any SF-manner and there is lots of work for "us" :)

@ Katalin: I hope, this answers your question too?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Gibson on August 30, 2010 at 1:17am

So for you, you would need a start on a solution for the growth of the world population before you felt a solution focused approach would be useful to politics? And maybe a solution to the overwhelming use of natural resources? These are big issues indeed. So if mankind does not solve these issues, mother earth will. Do you think this is destiny or do you think that mankind can have some say in this? I guess my point is whether we do nothing and wait for mother nature to make the change or whether we are able to make a change, no matter how small?

Matt

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Werner Winkler on August 30, 2010 at 5:51am

Yes, you understood me. If there is no hope to solve the big issue/s there is little motivation for me to engagage political, even with SF-approaches. Instead of helping politicans to make more use of natural resources, I see more sense in helping normal people to live a good life. Its about where my time, power and SF-knowledge is useful for the "bigger good". In other words: if I lived in 1939 I would not like to help Hitler by teaching him SF-tools - but I would like to help the resistance to stop this man.

I think we are at war with our planet and a real change that is worth our engagement must try to stop this war. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem - as you surely will understand. Barack Obama only changed the way how this war goes on, but I dont't think he is able or willing to stop it.

So sometimes it is indeed better to do nothing on a subject if you cannot help solving it and wait for the right moment/person/possibility.

Werner

• ▶ Reply