Home » Posts tagged 'social innovation'

Tag Archives: social innovation

Learning language by mingling

Expats in Eindhoven (Netherlands) complain that they can’t practice their Dutch. At work most speak English and in their private life they speak their own language. Eliska Slovakova (Czech and 7 years in the Netherlands) got inspired by the weekly “eating together” of COS3I’s social integration activities. She has local language practice difficulties herself and enjoyed meeting with elderly people one day at the event. “What happens with me surely also happens with other Expats.”

So she decided to make it into a combined event. Local elderly eating together with local Expats speaking Dutch, preferably non English speaking lonely elderly. She got so excited that she decided to create engagement games, questionnaires etc. It became an entire platform with a diversity of options for Expats to join. Her first attempt scored a 5 out 5 among all participants, Expats, elderly and every one else. Everyone was very excited. Most decided to repeat next week…. The best compliment for this talented Elizka, artist, engeneer and creative designer.

Social inclusion

When our AiREAS POP research revealed that our exposure to air pollution was related for 50% to our selves, lifestyle became important also for us citizens. The other 50% was due to the political economic structures that feed our lifestyle. So when we address our lifestyle we address pollution, undesired illnesses, expansion of health care costs, wellness in general and even politics. This is a mayor revelation. We used to pinpoint to governance, now we can pinpoint to ourselves. In fact, our reality is what we percieve and make of it. Perception and make ability of change is an interesting concept worth exploring. Making visible the invisible is an aspect of AiREAS that goes beyond simple measurement of air pollution. We try to visualize the effects of behavioral change on our health and quality of life.

Cos3i

That’s how we arrived at creating COS3I. The S and 3 make a heart shape which refers to the passion of wellness driven cocreation. The COS3I word stands for Cooperative in Social Inclusion, Integration and Innovation, hence the 3i.

But social inclusion in what? In our STIR case we decided to invite people into our core human values as defined in Sustainocracy. Rather than moralizing about air pollution and our own responsibility we wanted to get social inclusion into care for health and our opportunities. This represents a total turn around for people’s thinking, transforming from structural dependence to self leadership, through awareness and engagement.

But people do not relate to stuff they do not see. A new dimension is therefor added to our human interaction. It is one of the positive enquiry, the positive invitation. the engagement to genuin values. When we started doing this all kinds of circles of common interests started to appear. Each could be related itself to social inclusion but also used to engage other citizens.

COS3I circles

Each of these circles has very passionate people that wish to share their passion with others. We create neighborhood festivals in which we announce workshops and let people experience the circle’s energy with the invitation to engage. Despite the difference in focus the final effect of all circles together is a vibrant neighborhood and powerful wellness driven awareness and mentality. In the end the air quality improves through the social interaction, purpose driven social innovation and positive inclusion.

Social innovation and paradigm shift

In times of crisis, such as a recession or a depression, people talk about social innovation a lot. Other words that are being heard are civilian participation, social responsibility, etc. In fact, what we see happening is that the old dominant institutional world is calling out for help. When we look at my blog about the Kondratieff sinus we see that at the peak of an economic hype the conservative dominance of risk avoiding governance is blocking all kinds of social innovation. When the people are happy, get what they want, have nothing to complain about, few stand up to become creative with a desire for change. The social cash cow of conservatism in a peak economy is not the best basis to introduce social innovation. If you would want to do that you would need the Otto Scharmer U-Theory to simulate chaos and get people to become artificially creative. It is not the same as a genuine crisis.

A depression seems to get the best out of people in terms of adding true and lasting value to their community, especially when it collapses. Now why is that? There are a few reasons to mention:

1. Creativity needs stimulus

When a communities enters a recession is wakes people up to look at their own reality in a different way. Previously wealth was a matter of fact, now it is not anymore. Old securities disappear and people need to find access to new ones. They are obliged to think, triggered by their intense emotions. Fear for shortages, the pain of loosing previous wellness, the need to find a way out of chaos, the worries about their operational wellness, it all opens up peoples mind to change. It triggers a whole series of reactions, from complaints, aggression, suicide, etc, but also a boost of creativity in many.

2. Change needs to be “different”

In a recession people tend to do the same things over and over again to try to regain their old securities. They do not want to acknowledge that the crisis is caused because the “old ways” simply have become obsolete. You can’t take them for granted anymore, not matter how well they worked in society, business or family life before.  When the markets shrinks one needs to adjust, not in the shrinking but bailing out by being different. When an economic peak gets people to copy each other to benefit from wealth without any new creations, a dip gets them confronted in competition. It shakes up their similarities and stimulates the search for renewed uniqueness. Pioneers appear who propose new things and a sense of social innovation invades the surroundings. This stimulates others to do the same.

3. Change needs freedom

When you wake up at 7 in the morning to start the day, bringing the kids to school, go to work, worry about the bills, the shopping, the taxes and a personal career, to get back home at 18.30 tired, feed the children, take them to bed, crash on the sofa and watch the telly……. Then you have little time or interest to even think of social innovation or whatever. Your world turns around your daily responsibilities and that is type of worldview you have.

When however one has enough freedom it is much easier to find inner strength to overcome the burden of a daily routine and become creative. Need combined with available time gets people to experiment with innovation. Some do this by discovering new abilities or pick up old forgotten talents (they start to act, dans, sing, play a musical instrument, paint). Others start doing voluntary works and start meeting totally different people than before. New ideas are born, some are actually tried our and can even flourish. In freedom people disconnect from old structures and mingle with new connections, developing new communities and change happens organically.

4. Innovation needs to be seen

During peaks of abundance there are also people who have a creative nature and develop social innovations. They are however hardly visible because no one seems to be on the look out for inspiration. When a recession wakes up people the sensitivity for innovation grows and all kinds of inspiring novelty get the chance to be highlighted or “discovered” for public enlargement. Someone who has the creative urge to create innovation may lack the managerial leadership to outgrow it to make it a new social standard. The interaction of an institutional world in crisis with a new dynamic world of creativity in purpose driven freedom can boost any novelty to huge proportions. Visibility of inspiring innovations is hence a double sided phenomena. On the one hand it is the creativity of social innovation boosted by a recession that wants to be seen, and on the other, the open attention of crumbling institutions that need innovation fast to renew their expectations for survival.

Paradigm shift

A paradigm shift is not the same as social innovation. Can social innovation produce a paradigm shift? Or does a paradigm shift cause social innovation?

A paradigm is defined to be “a specific way of looking at a reality, determining the way one makes decisions and acts in accordance”. This means automatically that there are different ways of looking at a reality, challenging the way people make their decisions. In our current social paradigm the consumer based capitalist economy has a dominant position, determining the way governments, business, public in general, institutions, etc interact. Social innovation at an individual level generally may change the texture and coloring of the paradigm but will not change this overall paradigm.

So when we address the issue of climate change, global warming, global pollution, new possible global diseases, etc and attribute this to the dominant paradigm then social innovation within the reigning paradigm may address these issues from a consequences point of view but will not solve them from a cause point of view. To do that a paradigm shift is needed.

Sustainocracy is a paradigm shift

Sustainocracy was idealistically conceived when I decided that I did not want to pass the old paradigm on to my children because of the negative consequences it causes. Of course I did appreciate the positive elements of this paradigm but realized that we had reached a point that the balance had tipped over to the accumulation of negative effects, creating permanent instability also at the positive end. So in a way my decision early in the 2000’s was a social innovation. Back then my surroundings had no desperate feeling of a crisis yet even though the signs were abundantly present already. The establishment was still confident that change could be done from within the reigning paradigm. In fact, the established power structures were also an inherent piece of that paradigm and gained their existence from it. It was not up to them to challenge their reason to be. The only one that could challenge the paradigm is the one who has eyes to see and awareness to distinguish between realities. And that is the human being itself, because we are the ones that create our instruments, even if we allow them to reign us for a while. We have come to point that we need to redefine the usages and positioning of those instruments. And that is what we do in Sustainocracy. We respect the instruments as human creations and reposition them around a new paradigm in which the human being is placed at the center of sustainable human progression, not the financial systems.

With this simple change in mindset and observing the world, the world itself learns to see itself differently and starts to reshuffle their power positions accordingly. Slowly the two paradigms become visible to everyone and so does the choice everyone has. Social innovation then gets an entirely new dimension that changes everything simply because of the way we look at things. We live in a unique time-era in which we see a new paradigm arise, co-exist with an old one for a while, interacting probably with certain conflicts and eventually take over. People in next generations will read about this era in their history books but will look at society from that new dominant paradigm without the challenging adventure of living through the transformation, or even playing part in defining it. This era is therefor unique in the history of humankind and referred to by me and some others as “the quantum leap in human evolution”.

Open up your mind and be part of it. It is exciting, challenging and rewarding to be a pioneer of a new world.