By Chris Taylor
I can’t remember who said it, maybe more than one person expressed the same sentiment:
“We all know the old narrative has run its course. It’s not working anymore. We need to write a new narrative.”
It was one of many wise observations that surfaced during our last round of Crucial Conversations (formerly called Courageous Conversations). I remember the conversation vividly. The title was “Is Sustainability a Sham?” Wayne Visser had catalysed the discussion with a blistering critique of greenwashing and the complacency of the status quo. He warned us of the myriad risks of our own complicity in a mind-game that has us all convincing ourselves that we are part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Of course there were other views too. Matt Hocking who works closely with B Corps provided a number of compelling examples of businesses that are rising to the challenge and making deeply ethical decisions.
And that’s what makes Crucial Conversations such a refreshing format – we take great pains to bring together diverse perspectives to actually have a conversation. Not a debate, a slanging match or a competition to see who “wins” the argument. No. A conversation. A sharing of views and an openness to refine, change or modify the way we see the world.
To really embed this sense of diversity we have prioritised voices from the Global South and particularly indigenous voices. For us, this is a matter of principle – because the global economy has been built on the marginalisation and exclusion of these voices. And it’s also a very pragmatic approach. If we do indeed need a different narrative where better to find it than in dialogue with those for whom the current system is not working?
This was perhaps most apparent in our conversation about DeGrowth. Sahana Chattopadhyay and Pierre Smith-Kanna wove a compelling picture of a world beyond economic growth, where we might prioritise wellbeing, the environment, community. The new narrative was starting to appear – pieces of a jigsaw matching up and interlocking.
Our conversations about Decolonisation and Regeneration added texture to the narrative. We were starting to see how education could be radically reformed to provide environments where people could learn together the ways in which we can recreate the world.
Recent times have shown us what happens when debates polarise opinion. We have seen this in many recent elections and referenda around the world. And we saw it during COVID in many countries too. In part this might be because so much is at stake at the moment – we sense the urgency and importance of the decisions that face us. And in part it is also a factor of how we structure our discussions. Two party political systems, debating societies, even television talk shows all have a tendency to pit one imaginary side against another.
There are alternatives. Citizens Assemblies have a good track record of tackling controversial topics. Consensus decision-making has also proved its worth over decades of use. These are the models that inform the way we approach Crucial Conversations: ways to find common ground, to unpack and explore issues rather than lock down opinions. This can be particularly useful when you’re dealing with taboo or challenging topics.
2024’s Crucial Conversations promise to be no less controversial than last year’s. But if we carry on in the spirit of curiosity there’s a good chance we can explore some of the most crucial issues of our time with openness and a sense of possibility.
