Let me share the ambitious writing plan I formulated during a workshop last October, given the need I see to feel generative not only reactive when making one’s work and life in the turbulent politics of the USA today. Continue reading
This “Design sketch” arose for Case 3 for the session, “Gathering into Community,” of Design for Living Complexities, a case that involved “Learning from experience in the past and elsewhere to prepare one’s community for epidemics that may or may not happen”—see further description to follow and woven into the sketch.
The design sketch could be a plan with timeline, or a method of gathering people together, or a resource package (e.g., key issues, concepts, arguments, evidence, references, websites, summaries of case studies, quotes, images, organizations, people to contact, research already under way, research questions and proposals), or a portfolio of images to stir discussion, or…
22 August 2012 (prepared for discussion with Portuguese and Mexican colleagues)
1. We are concerned with prefiguring the future without disordering the present.
2. This requires theorized engagement within intersecting (cross-scale) processes of socio-environmental and social epidemiological change.
3. There are multiple potential points of engagement within the intersecting processes. In what ways can these be linked together in a manner that is intentional and explicit, that allows for indeterminancy of outcomes and does not assume that “truth is great and will prevail”?
4. There is always a tension between solidarities forged through working and living together in particular places—“militant particularism”—and the application of trans-local perspectives, abstractions, or other resources.
5. “Flexible engagement” = a process challenge, rather than a content challenge for researchers in any knowledge-making situation: How do we connect quickly with others who are almost ready to foster—formally or otherwise—participatory processes and, through the experience such processes provide their participants, contribute to enhancing the capacity of others to do likewise?
6. We seek personal integrity (in the sense both of whole-ness and ethical consistency) in the ways that the collaboration prefigures the way we want others to prefigure the future without disordering the present. (Evidence of that seeking is various explorations including, in my case, narrative and human givens approaches to therapy and community work.)
7. During workshops and other interactions we can experiment with creating spaces for connecting, probing, and reflecting (“CPR”), spaces that allow us to engage within intersecting (cross-scale) processes of somatic, mental, and emotional change over our life courses. In such spaces we see that it is not possible to simply continue along previous lines.
8. In those spaces we cultivate ourselves and others as collaborators through the “4R”s. In brief, the more Respect is established, the more Risks participants are likely to take; the more Risks, the more likely they are to have new insights or Revelations; and the more Revelations, the more likely they are to Re-engage with their interests and aspirations to make a difference through their work and lives.
9. There is always a tension between, on one hand, the insights, ethical commitments, and energy that arise in CPR spaces and, on the other hand, the challenges of translating those insights, ethical commitments, and energy into engagements outside those spaces with people who have not cultivated themselves as collaborators.
10. I have a proclivity for making what I now call “design sketches”—Design is about intentionality in construction, which involves a range of materials, a sequence of steps, and principles that inform the choice of material and the steps. Sketch denotes the incompleteness of the designs—there is often a gap between the principles I lay out and their realization in practice or established knowledge.
11. This is a brief design sketch for a collaborative project that I would like to be part of.
1. R. García Barrios.
2. Taylor, P. J. and R. García-Barrios (1995). “The social analysis of ecological change: From systems to intersecting processes.” Social Science Information 34(1): 5-30.
3. Taylor, P. J. (2005). “Unruly Complexity; Intersecting Processes,” Pp. 156-165 in Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
4 & 5. Taylor, P. J. (2005). “Epilogue: Three Stories,” Pp. 203-213 in Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/epilogue.pdf).
6. White, M. (2007). Maps of Narrative Practice. New York: Norton. Griffin, J. and I. Tyrrell, Eds. (2007). An idea in practice: Using the human givens approach. Chalvington, UK: Human Givens Publishing.
8. Taylor, P. J., S. J. Fifield, C. Young. (2011). “Cultivating Collaborators: Concepts and Questions Emerging Interactively From An Evolving, Interdisciplinary Workshop.” Science as Culture 20(1): 89-105 (http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/08c.pdf). Taylor, P. and J. Szteiter (2012) Taking Yourself Seriously: Processes of Research and Engagement. Arlington: The Pumping Station (available online as paperback or pdf from http://thepumpingstation.org/books/)
11. Similar points are developed in Taylor, P. J. (2012ms). “Now it is impossible ‘simply to continue along previous lines’– Incomplete and unrevised notes on Enactable Social Theorizing and Open Spaces.” http://www.faculty.umb.edu/pjt/12a.pdf.