I'd Tweak Warren's #9

Your next leader - and your team and your policy book - should be bursting with ideas, ideas, ideas. That is how you will defeat the Trudeau phenomenon: with smart ideas, not by making lame selfie jokes.

Ideas?  Absolutely.

From the leader, though?  From the backroom folk?  That's not really the conservative brand, is it? That brand is about avoiding the nanny state and giving agency to Canadians proper, isn't it?

Trudeau is a likeable leader, a strong presence, and - if the Tories frame him the right way - a bit of an autocrat.  

The way to counter this, carve out turf and actually do right by the country isn't to have a Britannica of ideas to sell the nation, but to develop a Wikiplatform where Canadians can express their own hopes and dreams, challenge each other's narratives, explore options and then map everything out to see where their are gaps to be addressed.

Happens to tie into one of the Harper government's narratives, too, and could help reframe some of Canada's concerns about that era.

Just sayin'...

Open Canada: Trudeau's Number

Liberal campaign chief Katie Telford has a thing for numbers.

Lots to cover, so let's dive right in - and, as Katie always suggests, I'll include a call to action at the end.

Justin Trudeau has made some bold commitments around Open Government and Open Data.  These particular promises were more than a way to define the Liberals as different than the Tories - changing the way government works is something his inner circle has been committed to for a long time.

One commitment that has a lot of people both outside and inside the public service excited:

– Involve Canadians in policy-making: The Liberals would use technology to engage more Canadians in the development and evaluation of public policy.

So, here's a question:

How can Canadians play a meaningful role in policy-making, impact-checking and avoiding unnecessary duplication, gaps and overlaps?  Government has a hard enough time doing this on its own, which is why silo-busting change management/culture development are popular pursuits right now.

Policy Hacks and Civic Engagement

Under Tony Clement, the federal Open Government team has done some amazing work around opening data and engaging Canadians with the goal of empowering citizens to turn public data into profitable enterprises.  The Canadian Open Data Experience was the largest hackathon in Canadian history.

At the same time, some Virtuous Schemers from that team have been exploring ways to strengthen engagement between the public service and every day political citizens with the intent of addressing structural concerns and wicked problems like poverty and climate change.

All of this should continue.  In addition, it would be amazing to see more engagement/hackathons between public servants and other players to hack policy issues and solutions that don't necessarily have to originate from government. (Think Civic Design Camp, Civic Tech, Community Solutions Lab)

MP Committees and touring consultations and whatnot are great - imagine they could tap into local/regional/national policy-making groups that were using open data to assess, prototype and refine policy, programs, co-design opportunities that could be citizen-led and private-sector/foundation funded?  Imagine government was a facilitator of civic leadership rather than CEO?

This is all happening in small-scale ways across the country.  What's needed to bring it all together is a stone in the soup, a source of inspiration (and, let's be honest, permission) - in short, someone like Justin Trudeau.

ACTION ITEM #1: Task the new President of Treasury Board/their Parliamentary Secretary to do a landscape assessment of groups, orgs and initiatives already in this space and start convening them in collaborative ways, offering them moral support, connections to funders/partners.

Open Data/Data Stories 

Opening up public data for public use is a monstrous task, not made any easier by the fact that different levels of government and even different departments of government aren't all in agreement with processes or platforms or even definitions.  There are even governments out there with significant caches of data still being kept on paper.

Worth remembering - what we're talking about here is a massive culture change.  If you've ever had a secretary who was insistent on keeping paper records because they didn't trust/feel comfortable with computers, picture that on a national scale.

As has emerged from Ontario's Open Data Directive process, it's not enough to make new demands of the public service - major culture change, support and a shift in agency to younger staff more comfortable with new ways of doing this is required to really make Open Government a reality.  More on this in the next point.

Beyond all this - who is Open Data for?  Is the goal to reach out to hackers or entrepreneurs, foundations focused on impact investment or not-for-profits?  If it's for everyone, what needs to be done to make it easier for Canadians in general to be aware of open data and comfortable navigating it?

This is a mighty challenge, but a doable one.  If Apple could transform computers from tools for the elite into necessities in daily life, there's no reason Canada can't do the same thing with data.

ACTION ITEM #2: Develop a national campaign geared towards increasing public awareness of Open Data and its value.  This campaign will also target governments, encouraging/enticing them to strengthen existing efforts to standardize data and data presentation.  (sales analogy: public = kids, government = parents, data = cereal)


That's Open Data - what about Data stories?

No offence to Katie; numbers may tell, but stories sell.  Stories also have the power to transform complex data sets into narratives people can wrap their heads around (instead of focusing on ingredients, talk about what those ingredients can make)

Here's where maps come in - GIS, data layering, money-tracking and all that fun stuff.

Picture sitting down at a computer and opening up a map-based portal that allows you to layer data in comprehensible ways to see how different sets interact.  Imagine this portal could even animate data presentation so you could see changes over time (and even predict them to a degree, like weather maps).

An example - I go to this portal with a particular interest in, say, Eastern Ontario.  I'm given the option to pick some data layers to add in:

- age demographics
- employment rates
- existing/planned healthcare infrastructure
- time frame of 2000-present

The portal would create a map that displays all these things in visual terms (a bit more sophisticated than what WellbeingTO does) and let's me see how they have evolved over time.  Down the road, the system might even add value by recommending related sets to add in for a more robust picture.

From another angle - imagine this portal could map demographics, quality-of-life-indicators, services offered locally, providers and funding.  Where is money being spent to achieve specific goals, but those goals aren't being reached?  What best practices exist on a small scale in one region that could be invested in and expanded?



A platform like this would address so many concerns funders, service-providers and end-users (citizens) have right now.  Entrepreneurs looking for new markets and new opportunities could use this platform to find gaps - as could governments themselves.  Government wouldn't need to be the owner of such a tool, just a supporter. There are brilliant young changemakers playing around with concepts like this right now like Oohee Lee (not even a Canadian citizen, worth noting, but none-the-less a person adding incredible value to the country).

Fun side-bar - when you create platforms like these, either in person or online, you end up with entire communities dedicating themselves to support solution-making in communities not even there own. Case in point: Pakathon. Can you think of anything more Canadian than that?

ACTION ITEM #3: In conjunction with the Open Data capacity building campaign, have a challenge/hack/competition that empowers the Canadian community to develop a digital data hub which allows individuals to access public data and use it to tell stories, identify challenges in user-friendly way.

Open Government/Responsible Society

There is a big challenge that comes with Open Data which hasn't been fully addressed.  As more and more data becomes open, we're going to see more and more examples of government getting things wrong.  Money has been spent without results.  Important problem areas have been missed or avoided.  Presenteeism is a big issue in our public services.

Imagine heeding the call and becoming a public servant, excited to make a difference for your country, only to find yourself in a culture where your expertise is dismissed, you're rarely allowed to see the big picture and you're regularly on eggshells, terrified of being the next Public Servant Zero.

That's a common story right now, and this is before open by default has become common practice.

Some big challenges to open:

- a culture of gotcha politics
- a public that has become used to reacting against negatives instead of contributing to solutions
- a culture class between traditional, top-down management structures and a more Millennial, flat-org approach to engagement
- stakeholders focused on what they want/what they aren't happy with rather than systems thinking

It's not enough to say "government, be open!"  There is a lot of supportive work that needs done to enable a culture of openness and engagement within the public service and, just as importantly, between governments, the private/not-for-profit sectors and civil society.

Where to begin?

Real change begins at home.

Government culture change, new forms of internal engagement/cross-pollination, even redesigning working spaces to facilitate the sorts of engagement and results we collectively want are all tough nuts to crack, but great strides have already been made.  There are some cool partners out there to work with, too.

A selfish example - the Centre for Social Innovation has pro-actively developed the kind of working environment and culture that government should be looking to emulate.  Heck, the CSI model is being studied and borrowed across the globe; even Kathleen Wynne has mulled the idea of a CSI Queen's Park.

What would a CSI Parliament Hill look like?

How could the right culture-change and space development empower engagement, resiliency, a can-do mentality and all the soft stuff necessary to help public service transition to Open By Default?

The key thing is that the answer isn't going to come in the form of one-off sessions on culture change; it has to be engaged into the every-day operations of government.

ACTION ITEM #4: Develop a culture change-management strategy for the Canadian Public Service (and Parliament) that emphasizes emotional resiliency, collaboration, systems-thinking, #HowMightWe vs #YouCantDoThat thinking, etc.  

ACTION ITEM #5: Pilot a CSI-style collaboraiton/community animation space on or near Parliament Hill to facilitate cross-pollinated engagement and solution-finding for public servants and beyond.

It's not enough to have a government that's open, however - you need a society that's comfortable and supportive of the bumpy transition it'll take to get there.  Make no mistake - change at this scale is messy.  There will be a lot of things that happen and even more discovered that could (and should) make communities and stakeholders angry.

This is a big reason why successive governments make promises about new ways of doing things, transparency, etc. and don't follow through.  It's not just about falling into behavioural traps; it's a big challenge to change when the public wants change to be painless.

If you want a government that is truly open, you need a society that is willing to work with government through the process that will get there.  You can't have an Open Government without a Responsible Society.

So how do you nurture that?

Anyone in politics has the answer to this question, even if they don't realize it.  What sells a person, product or process best is a third party validator.

Lucky for government, there is an entire movement of people and organizations already playing that role.  It's not just a national thing, either - it's international.  The world wants open.

And if Canadians can position themselves as global leaders of open and engagement, the catalysts for government/civil society engagement change everywhere, I think you'd find a steadily growing amount of Canadians would happily join that movement.

Especially youth and New Canadians.

Which brings us back to our first point about involving Canadians in the policy making process.  If the people see themselves as active, valued participants in a shared mission of transforming Canada into a world leader and catalyst for open, transparent, engaged - moving forward together/leaving no one behind - everything else will fall into place.

ACTION ITEM #6: As part of their landscape assessment, the new Treasury Board President/Parliamentary Secretary will actively nurture relationships with the Open Community (including support of Open events through attendance, social media promotion, etc).  

ACTION ITEM #7: The Open Outreach campaign will develop awareness, capacity and appetite for open gov/open data, but with an emphasis on why this matters and what we might collectively achieve.

Katie Telford likes numbers; numbers tell a story.

To pull a page from Justin Trudeau's book, here's my number - one.

One singular vision of the #countrywewant that can rally, inspire and engage Canadians in common purpose to be active participants in shaping a Canadian whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

It doesn't matter what this vision gets called, though it will definitely help to have a catchy brand.

What matters most is that the leader embodies it.  When that happens, others will follow.


There are 7 action items in this post - that's the number of ideas an organized mind can keep afloat in its working memory at one time.  The last two are really tag-ons to the first two, so you could even say there are just 5, which is a number most Canadians can hold on to.

Which leads to my call to action.

There is nothing on this list that isn't being tackled in one form or other already.

We have hackathons.  We have partnerships between public servants and community groups.

Open Data Days and related events are all trying to build community and empower people to be agents of change.

Speaking of agents of change - CSI is helping empower good ideas for social impact in a variety of ways.

And virtuous schemers are attempting the Herculaneum task of changing government culture from the inside out.  These are unspoken heroes whose efforts probably won't be felt for a generation and whose impact they'll never get credit - but they do it anyway.

You can be part of this change.  In fact, the change we seek can't happen without you.

Get informed, get engaged, make a difference.  It's great if there's a central leader who gives us the inspiration, but ultimately the power is ours - and always has been.

Here's one last number to help you get started - 200.

Canada's bicentennial will be celebrated in 2067 - far enough away that we can't predict what the world will be like at the time, but close enough that we could play a major role in actively shaping that future if we put our minds to it now.

There are countless Canadians doing just that, right now.

Are you with us?

Nation Building

Third mistake?  Mulcair did what Andrea Horwath and Olivia Chow did.  He moved to the right, big time.  On deficits, on defence, on doing just about anything in government: the New Democratic leader didn't sound like a New Democrat, at all.

In his mad dash to get to the centre, he left behind his bewildered core vote - and he left everyone else bewildered, too.  Election time, as Horwath and Chow discovered the hard way, is no time to toss out everything everyone ever believed about you.  Among other things, it's confusing.

Why are the NDP bleeding support?  They've strayed from where they were in the quest to solidify centrists votes; their base feels uprooted and everyone else sees the NDP as a policy tumble weed.

Why have the Harper Conservatives been able to grow?  For starters, they have never abandoned their base, which means their floor has never lowered.  Their roots are deep and the party ain't shifting ground.  

More than a couple positions that keep their base rock-solid, however, are anathema to voters on the other end of the spectrum.  You can't be all things to all people, but you can't win majorities off of your base alone.

So Team Harper has perfected the art of the wedge-issue, essentially side-stepping substantial policy challenges and appealing to people's baser instincts.  You can be a left-leaning, pro-separation Quebecer but hey, if the niqab/scary Muslim things makes you skittish, you might just base your vote on that alone.

That's what modern politics is about, after all - adding just the right pieces to your narrative to expand your coalition into the small percent of non-locked voters to form a majority.

While Team Harper is mighty effective at this, the consequence of their wedge-issue mentality is an increasingly divided, embittered and angry country.   Anger is better than confusion for gaining support - it's so clear, so motivational! - but it's a dangerous state to keep a nation in for long periods of time.

If not anger and wedge-issues, though, how do you add enough support to  your coalition to win? More to the point - how do you not push the short-term effective, long-term destabilizing anger-button when the other guys are doing so and clearly benefiting?

Is it possible for a party to win a big enough coalition with aspiration instead of instigation?  How could you effectively communicate such a message to the niche groups you need to win?

There is a massive difference between winning power and nation-building and increasingly, it's hard for Canada's political parties to play that role - a role they were never intended to play, anyway.

Perhaps the question needs to change.  Instead of parties asking what does it take to win, we should all be asking where do we go from here?

What Canada Should Be Ready For:

Look at this picture - what do you see?

I'll tell you what I see:

A wicked-smart, no-nonsense municipal policy advisor (and the genius mind behind CSLabs) elegantly raising points about the functioning of Westminster Parliamentary democracies and how we don't elect governments.

She's raising that point with an intelligent, informed panel put together by a remarkable think/do tank that is leading the way on two of Canada's current hot-button issues.

And all of this happening in a well-recognized Canadian institution - note the Sears name on the wall.

Smart people who understand how the system works and how the game is played dedicating themselves to positive solutions, and with the support of "old stock" Canada.

This election has largely been about emotions and emotional story-telling.  This picture mobilized the country (for a time) over an issue that has been going on for ages and shows no signs of stopping.

Scratch the surface, though, and a different picture emerges - the war room folk are no longer the only ones framing the narrative using data and behavioural economics.

The face of Canadian politics is changing; the power is shifting.

It is a revolution, of sorts, happening right out in the open.

So have hope, folks - winter is around the corner, but spring isn't far off either.

O3 - the Red Pill for Canadian Democracy

Take the blue smartie and this life continues forever and ever.

Take the red smartie, and I show you what progress really looks like.

If you've been frustrated with the current federal election, take heart - you aren't alone.  More and more people feel like Canadian politics is a closed box, and that citizens are little more than human resources whose purpose is seen as feeding the machine.

What if I were to tell you that this paradigm is changing?  

That the traditional hierarchy of government is being disrupted from without and from within?

That right now, in this very election, citizens have the power to shape the future of our country in ways never before imagined?

We've been living in a dream world, under the enforced illusion that only they have the power to keep our country from capsizing on troubled shores or sinking from a thousand leaks.

If you want to stay frustrated with the system and remain comfortably cynical, tune out.  Walk away.

                                                    There are many that want you to walk away.

If, on the other hand, you want to know what O3 is, click here.

Remember, though - we're only messengers.

Where we go from here... well, that choice has always been ours to make.

Smart Lobby Firms Need an Open Mind

My latest post on LinkedIn:

Knowing someone who can frame an issue in your language and make it relevant to your immediate concerns or plans is incredibly helpful, as is having someone on the outside you can speak with to get a safe read on the external landscape.

Self-serving?  Maybe, but it's also sound advice.  Altruism, after all, is selfishness that plans ahead...

#OwnIt: Special K for the Win

Have you seen the new Special K ad?  You can check it out right here.

When you're done, come back and I'll tell you why I think it's so awesome - and reflective of a broader trend in marketing (we'll get back to the changing face of marketing later).

There is absolutely nothing about cereal in this ad.  The ad's not about selling food - it's about selling the sensation of empowerment.  Instead of the traditional "I'm a hot model getting checked out by (other gender), eat this cereal and you can be just like me", what this ad says is "don't try to be some artificial Hollywood standard - be the best you you can be."  

Which involves more than cereal.  Look at the women in this video - are they leisurely eating a bowl of Special K while wearing white Lulu Lemon gear, looking like they haven't a card or rush in the world?  Nope - but then, how realistic is that, anyway?  Most people are hustling in the morning - to get to work, to get the kids ready for school, to do all these things simultaneously.  

In this way, most ads present false standards that people living real lives can't ever hope to realize - eat this cereal, turn into a model!  Buy this fitness video, be buff and turn heads in 20 days or your money back!

The intent of those more traditional ads is to project an image of perfection and tantalize the viewer with the notion that they can be just like that if they simply buy the product.  Which is of course isn't the case - health is a combination of factors, including diet and fitness, and it differs from person to person, lifestyle to lifestyle.

Instead of minimizing this truth and focusing strictly on their product and its values, what Special K's #OwnIt campaign does is present a more realistic view of women's health within their normal life context - starting with the relatable (97% of women have an "I hate my body" moment) and then throwing that inter voice of insecurity that so many ads speak to directly under the bus (tell that voice to shut up!).

What do we see then?  Not a series of women munching down on Special K, but embracing their lives, pursuing fitness activities and clearly feeling good about themselves doing so.  Larger woman dances, has a ball!  One-armed lady doing push-ups - how inspiring is that?  Then, women looking in the mirror and embracing who they are and what they can be.

There are only two images of people eating Special K in the whole ad:

- a woman in what looks like a gym, crunching on a bar after a workout 

- a admittedly idealized version of a middle-aged couple in a very comfortable house at what looks like the end of the day, with the woman sitting on a counter having a happy bowl of cereal (might want to close that fridge door, though - you're wasting energy)

The ad isn't about cereal - it's about a sense of empowerment.  

In real life, the less-than-model-perfect people will be drawn to what they see as perfect people subconsciously for the potential benefits (does perfection rub off through osmosis? If they get the hottest girl/guy in the room, maybe I can get the runner up?).  This isn't about empowerment - it's about relying on the power of others.

We're all drawn to things like humour and charm because they act like chocolate, or a hug - they make us feel good.  This isn't about empowerment - it's about externalizing happiness, the same way binge-eating or excessive drinking can be about externalizing the relief of depression or anxiety.

That's the kind of selling traditional ads capitalize on; they're not really trying to change our lives, they're trying to position their product as the life-changer.  Essentially, we're being told to become product wingmen, because proximity to or consumption of that product/service will make everything better.  We're shown a lifestyle, a look, and then told that product X is our ticket to that world.

Which of course isn't the way the real world works.

The #OwnIt campaign, however, isn't suggesting or even hinting that Special K is a world-changer, a ticket to the perfect body or perfect life.  In fact, the ad isn't about the cereal at all.  It's about perspective - and how when we change our perspective, we open up doors all on our own, without need of a magic key.

Very specifically, the ad targets women - a demographic that is still marginalized in the workplace, public life, on the street and especially in media, where the standard to which they are held is literally artificial.  It says to women - "We recognize that the standards out there - standards perpetuated by companies like us - are false, and harmful to you.  We want to change that.  We encourage you to challenge the status quo to disrupt what defines beauty.  We're on your side; we just happen to sell healthy cereal."

I'm not a woman, and I still felt good after watching that ad.  Like most people, I like seeing people overcome odds, build confidence and find success in their own way.  I get swept up in movements that empower change, just like a growing number of people.  I want to be part of that change.

I once designed a whole campaign called "What's Your Healthy?" around the idea of individual definitions of health and the notion of maximizing one's own potential rather than meeting false standardized expectations.  This concept ties in to a growing number of campaigns and initiatives that are tackling the status quo - redefining what it means to be mentally healthy, redefining what is socially acceptable in turns of ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

It's even happening in politics - while we still see old-school leaders positioning themselves as Alpha dogs and telling us to leave them in charge and just get out of the way, there is a growing movement towards citizen-engagement, social co-design and access to information and tools that empower everyone to have equal skin in the game.

Watch this ad by the Open Povernment partnership.

Done?  How do you feel?

Do you feel the same way you did after watching the #OwnIt ad?  Do you feel a tinge of excitement, a sense of opportunity and idealism?  If you're the target of an ad like this, what sensation does it leave you with?

What the marketers behind ads like this hope is that you are left feeling empowered, optimistic and inspired.  They want to make you feel like you - no matter who you are or where you come from - can stand on mountains.  You don't need them to do these things, any more than you needed your favourite teacher or coach to inspire you to be your best.

Just like that coach, or teacher, or mentor - you're going to remember them, aren't you?  

If the psychological imprinting intended by these ads work the way they're supposed to, you will begin to associate that sense of empowerment and optimism with the cereal (or the service, or the candidate).  

You will know that eating Special K is good for you, in that it provides good nutrients without detrimental sugar and whatnot, but you'll feel like you're getting a boost when you look a the box, like remembering the inspirational quote of that person who made a difference in your life.

In short, you're not buying the cereal for what it does for you - but what it reminds you is within your realm of possible, all on your own.

Here it is - the kicker, how marketing is changing and reflecting social change as a whole.

What business do companies like Apple have in supporting gay marriage?  They're supposed to be focused on selling products, right?  Sales is all about focusing on how your product is the best, most capable, the only one that can get the job done for a client, right?  That's what laissez-faire capitalism is all about; hard sales through self-promotion and then ABC closing the deal.  

There's no place in business for wading into social issues.

Just like politics is not the place to commit sociology.

Just like there's nothing wrong with the polling industry's methodology - it's the people who are the problem.

People seem to be forgetting the way the world works - top-down, assimilate-to-succeed, conservative family values, mass-standardization, sales through self-promotion, etc.  People need to succeed on society's terms and they need to find it within themselves to succeed - not count on external parties to hold their hand.  Right?

Yet more and more companies, parties, organizations and even movements are emphasizing empowerment of the individual, personalized definitions of beauty/success and diversity as a strength.  It's cool to be supportive; it's trendy to hack the system and its standards in favour of the individual.

Hence, companies supporting gay marriage, campaigns like black lives matter and MMIW, etc. Products essentially advertising for their target market, not to them.

And their markets - seniors, women, the LGBTQ community, millennials, etc. rewarding them for it.

See, the smart companies are applying new understanding of behavioural economics and societal trends to tweak their messaging and outreach to be less "push" and more "raise up", empowering their audiences to be co-creators of their brand through UGC.

Smart organizations are, in effect, empowering individuals to reach their maximum potential so as to contribute their maximum to the tranformative social change rocking our world.  

They've adapted to the times, evolved with their markets and are winning as a result.

What's the lesson in here for comms people and marketers?

People don't want to be sold to - they want to be engaged.

It's not about you, nor your product - it's about them.  Position yourself as part of their journey.

To succeed, help them succeed on their own terms - be part cheerleader, part teacher, and be clearly seen to embrace the social issues that matter to them.

The same lesson applies to business, HR and absolutely politics.

If you want to win, put your people first.  Don't focus on the hard-sell; focus on ownership.  It's not about you - it's about them.  

It's as simple as that.

And they will thank you for it in ways you can't begin to imagine.

A Shift In Power

Warren Kinsella: Ipso facto, voters have misgivings about all of the parties.  So, none of the parties is definitively ahead.

The rest of Kinsella's analysis talks about how the Convervatives will become competitive again, with the focus being on someone eventually becoming the people's choice.  That's how the system works, isn't it?  You gotta have a government, it's gonna be a party, so it's just a matter of choice.

Martin Regg Cohn: Canadians everywhere — everyone, it seems, except the federal government — are moving into that political vacuum. A lack of leadership and an absence of empathy have left the field wide open for others to respond decisively at every level of government, and especially at ground level.

This in response to an emerging reality:

An urgent humanitarian response is only human, but it is not enough. We must also reduce the causes of mass migrations (conflict and chaos), and avoid making those migrations even more dangerous (by tempting people to start a stampede) because people will die in the crush, drown on the high seas, suffocate in sealed trucks.

See, we can't keep playing the starfish-throwing game and patting ourselves on the back righteously - it isn't enough.  

The world is changing - literally - and it's impacting us all in more pervasive ways than at least we in the West are used to.

Which means that the way governance works needs to change and adapt.  As happens always, it's an organic process - as existing systems fall behind need, others step up to fill their place.

We live in interesting times...

Human Starfish: "'Everyone is the media'

"I pretended not to have seen, I pretended not to have heard because I didn't want to be responsible."

- Adalbert Lallier

The picture above came to mind as I read this article on the controversy caused by viral pictures of a drowned Syrian child, barely more than a baby.

It's a picture of Buchenwald Concentration Camp post-liberation; the well-dressed folk walking by the stacks of dead bodies are residents of Weimar, the centre of culture for Germany where Goethe and Schiller worked and lived.  

Weimar is a short drive down the hill from Buchenwald.  The smoke from the crematorium chimneys would have been visible from town.  The gunshots would have been heard.  More than that, inmates were transported through town.  There was no way the people of civilized Weimar could not have known something inhuman  was happening on the hill where Goethe took walks and thought.

Yet clearly, these people were disturbed and horrified by what they saw in Buchenwald, when it was right in front of them and impossible to avoid.

They couldn't pretend they didn't know something was going on next door to them, hidden behind the birches.  

"I can recall back in the '60s and '70s when we would see photos like this posted in newspapers regarding the Vietnam War," he says.

"We simply now have media that can reach more people and it's becoming more difficult for people to avoid seeing them."

The most famous example of these Vietnam War pics is at right.  The girl in the picture, Kim Phuc, is now a Canadian Citizen.  Her napalm scars remain.

Pictures like that have an impact that statistics or sound bites can't.  We're looking at real people, moms and dads, sisters and brothers, seniors, children - like anyone's family.  And the people in these pictures are enduring horrors that are uncomfortable to see.

We don't like pictures like this.  They make us feel despondent, or angry; they may even give us cause to worry about what the future holds for our own children.

Isn't it great that we can make that unease go away by reminding ourselves we have our own problems and our own solutions?  Or by making a donation to a cause and then comfortably changing the channel knowing we've done our part?

Thing is, there should be save venues, known venues for this kind of gruesome communication to happen; the news, which can be avoided, or magazines with marked pages that can be skipped over. Other people's tragedies have no place in the Facebook pages or Twitter feeds of the nation - that's a bit too much like suggesting that world and our world are one and the same.

That really makes us feel uncomfortable.

I've been to some corners of the world where bad things happen on a regular basis, where poverty and the consequences of poverty are dire.  Of course, being a Canadian, I don't need to travel far - there are First Nation reservations where conditions are pretty bad.  There are even communities and buildings in our big, civilized urban centres that reflect conditions that would make us feel uncomfortable to see in a magazine.

The truth is, we are as wilfully blind in our own way as the people of Weimar were in theirs.  We can tout the wonders of free market capitalism and talk about how it's improved the whole world, skirting over marginalized workers in places like Bangladesh that hold the free market pyramid up.

We can point to federal missions or donations or the loss of Canadian soldiers in places like Afghanistan and say "we've done our part, the rest is up to someone else."

This dead kid?  Honestly, it sucks to be him, but it's his parents' fault he's dead, no one else's - right?  Or bad luck to be born into a war-ravaged region of the world, but that's their own problem to solve - isn't it?  

Jedem das Seine?

As Westerners, we have a ridiculous amount of power that we neglect to use.  We can shape the policy of our governments - not resort to picking platforms and pitches sold to us.  We can stop buying products from companies who's practices overseas we dislike, and encourage good corporate ethics as a result.

We can decide to be allies to peoples in need in various capacities, and we can accept the risk that comes with such actions as taking on a small portion of the burden they should not have to carry alone.

But no one can force us to do these things.  No one has the power to persuade us, if we choose not to be persuaded.

At present, we lean towards laissez-faire engagement as a global citizen, despite holding the power to change everything by the choices we make.

Online, in person, through our efforts, our conversations and our consciousness, we are the message.

Right now, the message isn't particularly comforting.

If pictures of dead children bother you, great - that means you're human.

When the medium is everyone and what we choose becomes the message, all of these seas of troubling issues will eventually wash up against your shores.

What are you prepared to do to help keep future children from suffering the fate of starfish?

#CCETakeover Day 6: CSI and the Spirit of Change

There is something within us, not necessarily from outside us, which compels the building of Gobekli Tepe and places like it. That "something" is not simply accounted for by the usual explanations which seek to explain, or, too often, explain away, people's attachment to religious expression.

If you've come along for the whole #CCETakeover ride, you'll probably have noticed some consistent themes: 

- the desire to contribute more to society; 

- the search for community; 

- the emergence of a movement that is, depending on your point of view, either disrupting the status quo or in timely fashion trying to steer our civilization through a tectonic shift of cultural change.

Our journey began with the idea of DECAs as value-adding community animators, but as a counterpoint the reality that many people both members and DECAs alike have gravitated towards CSI looking for community. They are living through self-defined "periods of transition" and have come together because they feel that CSI is a place they can belong in, be part of.

This bears repeating - they're not coming to CSI looking for profit, a new market, or to get an in with a growing organization. They're not coming (at least not primarily) for the basics of space and desks and administrative assistance. These are all things that can be found elsewhere.

Entrepreneurs, Not-For-Profits, even corporations and public servants are migrating to CSI in search of something deeper than the material - something that isn't so easy to find in their normal lives and spaces of engagement.

They come to CSI looking to find themselves. They come to belong. They come to be part of something greater than themselves.

Pause on that for a second.

In Marxism, religion is labelled as the opiate of the masses - something that oppressive rulers use to keep lower classes in line. The implication in this is that the community existed first, and that religion was essentially a con created by elites that allowed them to rise to the top and ensure the common folk carried the labour burden.

Archaeological sites like Gobekli Tepe paint a different picture. They suggest that religion may have come first and became a focal point around which community could form, like the stone in the soup.

Now, think about political parties, or comic-cons, or festivals like Burning Man. What are these except places where people go to discover, share, create and belong? An individual or group of individuals, motivated by the urge to see something in the world that they feel is lacking, or find an avenue for expressing something they feel can't be expressed in their normal lives create a space for new kinds of activity to occur. They may be seen as outliers as first, but others recognize something is happening that they want to be part of. That's how any movement begins.  

Think about User Generated Content as a concept - the idea of people creating their own tweets, sharing their own ideas, investing in costumes or solutions that someone else will benefit from. Is it really a clever scheme by corporate/partisan interests to get people to do their heavy lifting for them, or is it a natural human inclination these organizations are simply harnessing, like hydro-electric power?

If it is a human instinct, it's about more than aggregating in communities - it's about personal empowerment within that community. Like DECAs who design better processes or members who plant the seeds of a community garden.

Functionalism looks at religion as sort of a manifesto for society; a standardization of values to allow for smooth societal operation, flow. We know there's a lot more to society than symmetry, though, because the world is a complex system that is constantly in flux; society also needs to be in flux, which means standardization is actually long-term detrimental to the well-being of society.

It's the core principle of Darwinism; that which survives isn't the toughest/most stubborn and inflexible, but rather that which is best able to adapt to its environment. It just so happens that consensus is growing at all levels of society and around the world that we are in the first blush of a tectonic soci-economic shift.

Besides, the implication of functionalism is that the community existed first and that religion is the thing that evolves to allow societies to function cohesively.  

If that's the sum of what religion has to offer - in essence, rules - why has religion consistently been a catalyst for the creation of entirely value-add art?

Visit any continent, inhabit any society - the material culture of humanity is illuminated with value-added art, architecture and music created for the glory of (insert deity here). Throughout history, people have been inspired to create art and add value to their community because of religious fervour. It's not the only motive (love is another one), but it's a consistent one.

I'm sure by now you can see where we're headed.

There is evidence to support the notion that some form of religious instinct serves as a centre of gravity that pulls people together - call it the spirit of community. While organized religion (much like organized politics) can lean towards an insistence on rigid hierarchies, rituals and codes of surface societal conduct, the raw spirit of religion has been known to inspire people to create, experiment - be innovative. That, and of course, to be pro-social.

It used to be the case that religious institutions did the lion's share of charitable/social service activity.
 
As our society has expanded and older religious/social models have faced challenges in adapting to our shifting societal consciousness, we've seen a diversification of charitable/public service providers and solutions offered.

Less people make weekly visits to partake in religious services. Less people identify themselves as being part of one religion or another. Heck, less and less people believe in the concept of a divinity, period.

At the same time, there are a massive number of charitable organizations, not-for-profits, community groups and corporate social responsibility initiatives out there all seeking to do what used to be the purview of the church and, to some extent, the state.

In fact, there are so many funders, service providers, etc. out there now that we lack a comprehensive system to keep up with all of them. Our current model of service provision, including government, is plagued by duplication, gaps and overlaps. Humans do silos well, but systems - that's a work that has progressed in iterative fits and spurts throughout history.

The past two days of #CCETakeover have explored some of the work being done right now to facilitate this transition from silos to systems through open government and open data initiatives. Even media organizations like the Toronto Star are getting in on the game, asking #howmightwe provide access to our resources so as to empower others with them?

If wade into the conversations being had at forums ranging from Open Data Day to the Toronto Global Forum to countless chats in coffee shops across the land, there's growing buzz around the concept that all of this is leading somewhere, that there is a common ground in the middle of activity that we just need to discover.

Over the course of #CCETakeover, we've also looked at innovative programs like Techsdale and Community Solutions Labs that aim to empower traditionally marginalized people so that they can be equal partners at the social table.  Projects like these empower individuals within target communities. And they start by creating shared spaces and cultures that nurture belonging.

Initiatives like these aren't about service provision, capitalizing on an untapped market - in fact, the revenue-generation model is often the last bit of business to be tackled.  The key motivation isn't to reel people (and their pocketbooks) in, it's about growing strong communities.


Which leads us back to CSI.

What is CSI?  Is it a co-working space?  Is it an incubator?  Is it a unique environment that places coffee-making higher up on the to-do list than turning on the printer?  It's all of that, but from its inception, CSI has aimed to be something more.

"It's a place where I think you belong", Adil Dhalla has described it, perhaps prophetically.

CSI's membership continues to grow.  Its events attract more and more people, each one looking to find something - and each one ultimately finding both a community to belong in and an encouraged opportunity to be and do more within and beyond it.  It's not just the grassroots/Not-For-Profit community that has become a pillar of the CSI community - For-Profit entrepreneurs, corporations and even government is starting to put down roots in the centre.

My favourite examples of this are the weekly salad club which happens at each location and the community potluck with which CSI Regent Park is helping to animate not only their members, the broader neighbourhood around them.

The format of these events is pretty simple - CSI provides the pot (physical space) and a stone (the event), then inspires others to bring their own ingredients into the mix.  With a bit of intentional animation, what results is not only a meal as rich as its members, but a dynamic community of engagement.

CSI members are, by and large, change-makers.  They are part of a community that believes in community.  Members reflect the Grasssroots, For Profit and, increasingly, government agencies, partners and even public servants like Diana Thai.  The same holds true for those who are becoming part of the broader CSI community through events, programs and projects.

Wherever they have arrived from, these change-makers, virtuous schemers and community animators have three things in common:

- the desire to contribute more to society; 

- the search for community; 

- the belief that a movement for social change is emerging

These needs and beliefs have driven each one of them to the Centre for social innovation.

I don't think it was intentional.  If anything, the story to date seems to suggest that the catalysts of CSI were simply the first ones to put down a pot, toss in a stone and issue an invitation.

As things often happen, CSI just ended up being conceived and executed at the right point in time when an unnamed community of people were individually looking for an aspirational community to belong to that didn't seem to exist anywhere else.

Part by design, part by luck, but to a large extent simply because there is a need, CSI has come to represent the spirit of change that defines the age we live in.  Increasingly, CSI also embodies the spirit of community that people are seeking.

That's why it is becoming a centre of gravity for the change-making movement of our time.

Is the Centre for Social Innovation a modern-day Gobekli Tepe? If so, what are the broader implications of that?

I have no answers to share with you - only perspective.

After all, this takeover is a ride we're all taking together, as a community.

And where we go from here - that choice is up to us.