Team Syntegrity participants in Barcelona in June, 2017.The Team Syntegrity (TS) sessions
held in Barcelona on 19-22 June provided a space and a method of hope in which
a variety of social powers unfolded through association and combination.
The objective was to think
collectively about how civil society may be able to confront the main global
crises and democratise our societies. Since the results will be made public shortly,
I will focus in this piece on the method that allowed us to come up with
concrete proposals and the processes that helped us to advance and build a
sense of belonging.
One of the key strengths of the
sessions was the cybernetic method of non-hierarchical participation that set
the rules for constructive and efficient dialogue and decision-making. This
approach was based on 12 teams comprised of five members from a variety of
backgrounds. Each team was in charge of discussing one specific topic and developing
concrete statements, proposals or recommendations that set the path for
strategic action.
Topic discussants (at the table) and a row of "critics". Behind them, some"observers".They received feedback from the
"critics", who contributed to improving the discussions and the
proposals. In addition, the "observers" moved information from one team
to another in informal conversations, helping to develop further synergies. All
participants were involved in each of the three roles, thus providing different
inputs.
Fundamental to the method was
relating the different topics in order to address the interconnected crises
that are generating so much suffering at a global level, such as the economic,
environmental, educational, media and ethical crises. Since everybody
participated as a member in two teams, we were able to integrate bilateral
learnings. For example, participating in the Internet and the Biosphere teams
helped me reflect on the environmental consequences of the current models of
production, distribution, consumption and disposal of communication
technologies and contents.
The TS method therefore helped us analytically
to connect multiple levels of reality. It provided the perfect organisation for
efficient, individual and collective self-management. Although the method
included several more aspects that I haven't mentioned, the following icosahedron
is really helpful as it shows the different connections between topics and
participants.
The icosahedron for Team Syntegrity 2017 in Barcelona.
The methods of collective
participation, although extremely rich opportunities for the exchange of ideas,
are never easy to complete successfully in practice – challenges
and difficulties always arise. This is why the frameworks for discussion and
decision-making that we established spontaneously were so fundamental. We had
to decide on the fly the processes we wanted to promote and those we wanted to
discourage.
For example, it was important to
manage time wisely so that each team member would have the same opportunities
to express ideas. Equally important were the processes of individual
self-management, which worked great, as demonstrated not only by the
high-quality contributions of participants, but also by the ways of
contributing: the respect for others, the language, the tone, the demonstrations
of support, the reorientation of discussions that went off-track…
The author and fellow participants.We managed to deal individually,
severally and collectively with misunderstandings, dissatisfaction, irrelevant
conflicts that distract us from the main effort, and even with the all too
common problem of swollen egos, which had very little presence in these days.
In the face of dominant values of
rugged competition, selfishness and the sick obsession with capital
accumulation, we foregrounded the principles of cooperation, mutual trust and
support, free sharing and empathy. However, we did not do so through simplistic
binaries, but rather through an empirical, imaginative and creative orientation
of these natural human traits. This way, competition ceased to be understood in
the negative way that capitalism promotes, i.e., as a zero-sum game in which
one side wins to the detriment of the other side. Instead, we practiced a
healthy approach that allowed us to question, criticise and contrast ideas,
discard, refine, piggyback or develop them as a team to reach the optimal level
in what we may call a process of competitive collaboration. This is the kind of
highly effective process of individual and collective improvement also
to be found in team sports.
All of this was accomplished by
treating others as human beings with intrinsic dignity. Acknowledging the value
of each of us was fundamental in opening our minds to listening, learning and
cooperating with others while still defending our own point of view. Collaborating,
competing, contradicting, negotiating, accommodating and compromising, all took
place to different degrees in one symbiotic process. Consensus was often
reached, but it was not a necessary outcome since the statements and the proposals could also include differing views.
In contrast to the perverse logic of
labour exploitation and consumerism that affirms the principle of "tomorrow,
corpses, you will enjoy life", we experienced the joys and pleasures of
engaging in practices of and for social justice. Against the loneliness that
the system creates, we continued to build networks grounded on friendship,
affinity, community and trust that can grow with time.
This is the logic of taking care of
ourselves and of others, since we acknowledged that individuals fulfil
themselves collectively and that the community requires individual freedom and
creativity. This approach allowed for the crystallisation of a philosophy of
practical love to different kinds of people; a potential that we all have inside
us. This is love as the practice of freedom because liberty can only be
expanded through genuine solidarity.
If the Enlightenment showed the
power of rationality while excluding the power of emotion, Romanticism showed
the power of passion while excluding reason. The exclusionist pattern has continued
until today, when perspectives on the power of affects preclude the power of
reason. However, social change requires a combination of affects and rationality.
There is nothing more rational than the emotions that push us towards justice,
freedom, fraternity and equality. In this vein, we engaged with the politics of
feelings through a systematic TS method that helped us develop the concrete
proposals and plans that we will shortly deliver.
The opening question.This approach of rational passion
involved the diagnosis of classism, racism, sexism, LGBTI-phobia and other
types of oppressions, as well as the therapy. First, understanding reality, to then
develop the tactic of being change at
an individual and community level, within a strategy to change concrete social
realities and, eventually, achieve the objective of macro-social
transformation.
The TS is one of the many practical
examples developing around the world that provide a real demonstration that
other forms of life and sociability are not only desirable, but also possible. In
other words, massive oppression is not unavoidable, there are many alternatives
taking place and we can learn from all of them.
The event showed that of course we
can, when many people are dedicated to social justice and that, as Antonio
Machado wrote, "the path is made by walking". The TS experience was
one more step in building the "We" — based on informed
hope, collective struggle and mutual trust and support — that
is needed to face the multiple crises looming over humanity and the environment.
And to create a more liveable world by and for the majority of the population.