Iowa City: Questions of Good and Evil?
Action
We were in Iowa City mainly to visit my friend Jaimie, but since I was in town, a professor at the university invited me to speak with a local social justice organization about progressive planning. Rather than deliver a formal talk, I tried to engage the organization’s members in discussion through a short participatory workshop. I proposed that we select a key inequitable local planning project or process, and then discuss more progressive alternatives by considering a series of questions:
1) Who benefits and who loses from the current project/process, and how?
2) How could the project/process be more equitable?
3) What should local activists do to help bring about more equitable approaches?
The first issue that the participants chose to discuss was a huge environmental education center, complete with an expansive rainforest biosphere and nature preserve, that was soon to be built near Iowa City. I asked who benefits and loses from the project, and for the next 15 minutes, people (mostly white, middle-age men) angrily discussed why the project would fail entirely (it would cost more than its budget, not create enough jobs, no one would come…).
I asked my initial question again, and an older woman responded that businesses in Coralville (the adjacent town where the center would be built) would benefit the most, from increased tourist business. A middle-age woman of color added that the center’s anticipated reliance on low-paying service jobs would benefit the center developers (by lowering labor costs) more than local workers (by not creating many living-wage jobs).
There were some murmurs of support, but then a couple of the participants who dominated the initial discussion changed the subject. They asserted again that the project will fail entirely, and that instead, we need to build mixed-use (residential and commercial) environmentally sustainable development oriented around transit, bikes, and pedestrians.
After several minutes of wandering discussion, some of us (intermittently) returned to the workshop questions, and we quickly discussed more equitable options for the project (reducing the center size and costs to free up funding for public housing and social programs, a living-wage guarantee for center employees, discounted ticket prices to make the center more accessible for low-income visitors…). Our allotted time ran out and several of the participants heartily thanked me for an interesting discussion, but I left feeling somewhat frustrated.
Reflection
Reflecting on what had happened, I first thought about workshop design techniques that might have led to a more productive discussion. If I had written the discussion questions and agenda on flipchart paper at the front of the room, would people have been more focused? If I had asked everyone to write their answers to the questions on paper before discussing them as a group, would there have been space for more different perspectives? That said, I had little time or funding to prepare for the event, and the meeting was very informal in nature, so preparing a more sophisticated process would have been difficult.
I then turned to the more fundamental problem bothering me: the tendency of many of the (especially but not exclusively) white male participants to reduce complex social and economic questions to polarized yes or no answers. At the Iowa City workshop, they proclaimed that the environmental project will either fail or succeed – rather than exploring how the project will actually ‘fail’ or ‘succeed’ for different groups and individuals, or envisioning different ways in which it might create more equitable jobs or education. This behavior reminded me of some of the national anti-Bush campaigns, which suggest that the solution to America’s problems comes down to the vote for or against George Bush – rather than exploring the complex economic, social, and political processes that have led to Bush’s policies, or envisioning how these policies might be altered through local democracy (Is a single national election the extent of our democratic decision-making?) or collective social action (Are individual elected politicians the only people who can change society?).
I still haven’t been able to put my finger on exactly what bothered me, or what to do about it, but I kept thinking about the type of questions asked and not asked. Renate mentioned that the simplifying questions asked (or answered) could be considered Manichean, in that they reduce complex situations to diametrically opposed notions of good and evil. I suggested various probing questions at the meeting (see above), as alternatives, but I’m sure that there are even better questions that I didn’t ask.
Question
What kind of questions should we ask to probe beyond Manichean or polarizing questions, to better understand and act on complex situations?
We were in Iowa City mainly to visit my friend Jaimie, but since I was in town, a professor at the university invited me to speak with a local social justice organization about progressive planning. Rather than deliver a formal talk, I tried to engage the organization’s members in discussion through a short participatory workshop. I proposed that we select a key inequitable local planning project or process, and then discuss more progressive alternatives by considering a series of questions:
1) Who benefits and who loses from the current project/process, and how?
2) How could the project/process be more equitable?
3) What should local activists do to help bring about more equitable approaches?
The first issue that the participants chose to discuss was a huge environmental education center, complete with an expansive rainforest biosphere and nature preserve, that was soon to be built near Iowa City. I asked who benefits and loses from the project, and for the next 15 minutes, people (mostly white, middle-age men) angrily discussed why the project would fail entirely (it would cost more than its budget, not create enough jobs, no one would come…).
I asked my initial question again, and an older woman responded that businesses in Coralville (the adjacent town where the center would be built) would benefit the most, from increased tourist business. A middle-age woman of color added that the center’s anticipated reliance on low-paying service jobs would benefit the center developers (by lowering labor costs) more than local workers (by not creating many living-wage jobs).
There were some murmurs of support, but then a couple of the participants who dominated the initial discussion changed the subject. They asserted again that the project will fail entirely, and that instead, we need to build mixed-use (residential and commercial) environmentally sustainable development oriented around transit, bikes, and pedestrians.
After several minutes of wandering discussion, some of us (intermittently) returned to the workshop questions, and we quickly discussed more equitable options for the project (reducing the center size and costs to free up funding for public housing and social programs, a living-wage guarantee for center employees, discounted ticket prices to make the center more accessible for low-income visitors…). Our allotted time ran out and several of the participants heartily thanked me for an interesting discussion, but I left feeling somewhat frustrated.
Reflection
Reflecting on what had happened, I first thought about workshop design techniques that might have led to a more productive discussion. If I had written the discussion questions and agenda on flipchart paper at the front of the room, would people have been more focused? If I had asked everyone to write their answers to the questions on paper before discussing them as a group, would there have been space for more different perspectives? That said, I had little time or funding to prepare for the event, and the meeting was very informal in nature, so preparing a more sophisticated process would have been difficult.
I then turned to the more fundamental problem bothering me: the tendency of many of the (especially but not exclusively) white male participants to reduce complex social and economic questions to polarized yes or no answers. At the Iowa City workshop, they proclaimed that the environmental project will either fail or succeed – rather than exploring how the project will actually ‘fail’ or ‘succeed’ for different groups and individuals, or envisioning different ways in which it might create more equitable jobs or education. This behavior reminded me of some of the national anti-Bush campaigns, which suggest that the solution to America’s problems comes down to the vote for or against George Bush – rather than exploring the complex economic, social, and political processes that have led to Bush’s policies, or envisioning how these policies might be altered through local democracy (Is a single national election the extent of our democratic decision-making?) or collective social action (Are individual elected politicians the only people who can change society?).
I still haven’t been able to put my finger on exactly what bothered me, or what to do about it, but I kept thinking about the type of questions asked and not asked. Renate mentioned that the simplifying questions asked (or answered) could be considered Manichean, in that they reduce complex situations to diametrically opposed notions of good and evil. I suggested various probing questions at the meeting (see above), as alternatives, but I’m sure that there are even better questions that I didn’t ask.
Question
What kind of questions should we ask to probe beyond Manichean or polarizing questions, to better understand and act on complex situations?
3 Comments:
At 12:33 PM, Jen said…
This reminds me of something that occurred here at work last night.
At the tv station, we invited local viewers to watch the presidential debate and get their feedback. We were particularly interested in voters who were 'undecided' and if what was said clarified the issues or helped them make a decision.
On the whole - it didn't. People already knew what side they were on, or if they were 'undecided', they weren't swayed at all.
When I read your review of what happened, I tried to imagine how you could have rephrased the questions. I don't really think it would have mattered - which is sad to admit. One thing we noticed last night is that the viewers heard what they wanted to hear, and dismissed anything to the contrary (for the most part). If you have rephrased the questions, you might have had some changes in the responses, but overall the people would probably have disregarded the parts they didn't want to think about, and answered in the same way.
It sounds like some people brought up the issue of how the project might affect different groups, but the 'succeed/fail' people didn't really hear that.
In this case, it was a set group of older, white males who had the succeed/fail mentality, but I can see this happening among any group of people who are unwilling to see something from another side.
I think it's a question of group dynamics too. If you were talking one on one with one of these 'succeed/fail' people, they might open their eyes to a different approach to the project issues, but the group mentality and peer pressure are very much alive.
You might have been able to think of better questions with more prep time, but I'm not sure if it would have helped . . . you never know. It's just something to keep in mind in the future - and hope for the best.
At 2:26 AM, Justin said…
I don't think the questions could have been any better. They are clear in intent and focused.
It sounds like some of the participants were charged up about an issue and working backwards trying to highjack your forum to their wants. Everything I have learned in phone tech support and Ranger training is that when someone is wound up like that it takes time and work to calm them down again and pointing in the right direction. This isn't very fair to the rest of the participants who are there to recieve the benafit of your knowledge though.
Sometimes you can get away with a little verbal judo of acknowledging their frusteration and then re-prhasing their point to the scope of your outline and move forward (like how Mark Steiner or Kojo Nnamdi can turn the stupidest statement around into a thoughtful question). Other times it takes a less sublte direct responce about how that isn't in the focus of this workshop.
All the community radio work I did I wasn't a very good moderator or participant. As the technical consultant I would lay out the situation as clear as I could and ask specific questions and I would get back diatribes from the crusty hippys or the workers party guy deciding that he knew better than me based on somthing he thought he heard once. The whole prossess was frusterating and I stoped being as open and objective and started to be a hinderance to it too. I have learned a lot about working with people lately and I hope I get a chance to do it again better this time.
At 8:30 AM, lernerm said…
Here's a middle aged guy posting his first ever comment on a blogger - hope it goes through. Your experience with the discussion not going quite as you had hoped is common in teaching. Sometimes things like that just happen, and you learn from them so it won't hapen again. Sometimes it's due to lack of preparation on the part of the teacher, sometimes to lack of structure. For example, if the discussion was going off track due to these guys, you could have simply, but forcefully (in your role as teacher-authority figure) reminded or insisted that they stay on track. Or, you could have gone with the flow and challendge their black/white way of viewing the world, which would have taken you away from the original topic, but onto another worthwhile one. And yes, having class participants think about/hand in comments about the topic for discussion in advance of class is always a good idea - it gives the teacher a heads up on what might happen during the discussion, and ensures that class participants aren't just speaking without having thought about the issues being discussed. Regarding your concerns about Manichean thinking, actually that's probably one of your most important tasks as a teacher - to get students to consider different points of view, and to become comfortuable with uncertainty. One way of doing this is to model this way of thinking, and to require students to engage in (how shall I put it) un-Manichean thinking, to argue against their own point of view. Anyway, just a few thoughts on teaching, which I think you'll be doing a lot of in the future.
Post a Comment
<< Home