I find myself wondering if I am the only one dismayed by the “mudwrestling” going on among Dambisa Moyo, Jeffrey Sachs and William Easterly… and others. In case you haven’t heard, Dambisa Moyo has written a provocative book on the merits of development assistance. Her book, Dead Aid, challenges some of the accepted wisdom about how to help poor countries out of poverty. I love provocative books. I love people who can stand the world on its head and say maybe the world isn’t flat after all. We all need shaking up on a fairly regular basis, especially in the times we live in now.
For me, what ought to have happened after the publication of Dead Aid would be for more pieces like the balanced Francis Fukuyama review in Slate to find prominence and for a stimulating, constructive, multi-dimensional conversation to begin about what this might mean for development policy. Conversations that start by seeking points of agreement in the other’s work and that try to build on those points of agreement.
Instead, what I see is the sort of, winner-take-all, academic sniping that destroys without creating. To pokes holes in the foundations of another’s argument without acknowledging or building on the sturdy parts of their foundations is not really constructive. Don’t get me wrong. I am a fan of Karl Popper. I believe that disprovability is the cornerstone of the quest for truth. Yet I also believe that compassion is as important a part of academic discourse as rationality.
George Lakoff, author of Metaphors We Live By, points out that the dominant metaphor for argument is that of conflict and struggle. And indeed, William Easterly validates this when he says that the “purpose of debate is to facilitate the emergence of the best ideas and to shoot down the worst ideas” and “it is clear to me intellectually that Sachs’ ideas are wrong, and I will combat them accordingly” (emphasis is mine). Hat tip to another World Bank alumnus, Steve Denning, for making me aware of Lakoff’s work. But why the metaphor of conflict? Why not a metaphor of mountain climbers roped together scaling a summit?
I am reminded of a page from Sam Kaner’s excellent Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision Making in which he explores two different modes of problem solving:
| Either / Or | Both / And | |
| Value System | Competitive | Collaborative |
| Type of Outcome Expected | Win / Lose | Win / Win |
| Attitude toward “Winning” | To the victor goes the spoils | Your success is my success |
| Attitude toward “Losing” | Someone has to lose | If somebody loses everybody loses |
| Attitude toward minority opinions | Get with the program | Everyone has a piece of the truth |
| Why explore differences between competing opinions? | To search for bargaining chips, in preparation for horsetrading and compromise. | To build a shared framework of understanding, in preparation for mutual creative thinking. |
| Essential Mental Activity | Analyse: break wholes into parts | Synthesise: integrate parts into wholes |
| How long it takes | It’s usually faster in the short run | It’s usually faster in the long run |
| Underlying philosophy | Survival of the fittest | Interdependence of all things |
Ethan Zuckerman’s pointer to a thoughtful post on the blog What an African Woman Thinks is what actually compelled me to write this. The author, Rombo, has a fresh, critical yet compassionate take on the debate. It reminded me that compassion and critical thinking will take you a lot further in the social construction of knowledge than critical thinking alone. So, Dambisa, Jeffrey, William how about a little less invective and a little more compassion or dare I say ubuntu? Africa certainly has no need of aid when it comes to philosophy, perhaps the other way around.
Interesting post Steve. The comparison table makes me wonder which model is used in open source communities. I suspect it has something to do with that balance between Popper and compassion (although it’s a bit unfair to place him as the opposite of compassion).
The first impression would be that open source has to be the Both/And model of decision making, because it’s a volunteer community and it’s all about “sharing”. However, while the overall principle might be synthesis (combining lots of pieces of software into one application), the code development and selection process is more accurately described as survival of the fittest. Some might argue that the same applies to participation on developer mailing lists. It’s a fascinating combination of the two. On one hand, you get the innovation edge that comes from competition of ideas – yet, there is an overall goal that trumps individual successes.
Is the facilitation book in the Foundation library (yet)?
Ironic that a both/and approach should apply to the very dichotomy proposed in the table. 🙂 I agree with you. I don’t think it is one or the other particularly but I do believe seeking the truth in others as opposed to seeking what is broken as a general rule is more productive. Of course this has never stopped me from delivering a sharp verbal clip around the left ear in the past. It is more something I aspire to.
Since you bring up Open Source, a sage piece of advice I have seen given to Open Source projects is to always approve the first piece of code contribution from someone in the community no matter how bad it is. Rather help them fix it, build their confidence, and gain their participation allowing them to learn and develop their skills in the process. As opposed to simply rejecting the contribution based entirely on its merits and potentially dissuading them from contributing further.
Ben and Ros Zander’s Art of Possibility chapter on “Being a Contribution” fits in here. Facilitator’s Guide is in my library and your welcome to borrow it any time.
you are right Steve… comparison can bring out the truth. but not all the truths are out in the comparison. we must be then very careful in choosing and comparing. (www.kika.ca)