I recently got an email restarting the Transition process and looking into Steering Committee type stuff in town, asking for all those still interested to reply. And I hesitated. I still have not replied.
I was excited about it several months ago, but I feel a little sour about it now. I wonder if perhaps our conflict of vision is what caused us all to walk away/take a break for these several months. I think I was one of the main conflict headers. I think that Transition is cool stuff, is necessary, is win-win, and I want to see it succeed. I wonder if my participation would hamstring it, because I would always be questioning some of the paradigm that seems to get a lot of people really fired up about it. I have seen a tendency for those excited about Transition to be folks who believe in the Peak Oil Apocalypse and the Enlightened Few versus the Ignorant Masses, and those are both Mytho-Realities that I actively question and choose not to live.
With my questioning, I do not want to sabotage the very fervor that would lead to Transition success. Or, as the voice of an old friend and activist whispers to me, perhaps they need my voice questioning those paradigms that keep them limited, so that Transition can be successful. My friend would tell me that my input is highly valuable and I would be an asset to the committee instead of a hindrance. I admit to having a little less confidence than that.
Relatedly, I find that my focus of what I want to work on is changing. My projects seem to be contracting into the personal: baby-making, alternate streams of income via drums, growing my healing practice, and acquiring land to raise our family on. On the one hand, I absolutely believe in the bigger picture and its relevance to all our lives. On the other hand, my kids and partner come first. I am conflicted about it a little, but then again, I can feel myself relaxing into my own advice to other friends who became parents before me: You are doing what you can right now, and that is enough. There is a reason most activists are the young and old. They have the time and energy to work on the bigger picture, while the parents are raising the next generation.
I'll have to keep pondering the Transition question. I think I will call a friend who is still involved and see what she thinks about my contributions and how they will play out in the politics of the thing.
Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transition. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Everybody Loves the Trolley
Headed to the local Earth Day festival at the park downtown this year. Wandering around the booths, I stopped at the public transit booth and got to ask some questions. I am so excited to learn that we now have a local bus that runs for free around downtown. There are two lines heading to different sites of interest, and one runs until 6 and the other until midnight 6 days a week.This is especially exciting because I saw a similar transportation solution in Seattle when I was there a few years ago. It really made the city friendlier and much more accessible to everyone, local citizens and tourists alike.
I also got to ask the transit folks if we are going to get trolleys. We used to have them about 100 years ago, but they were all taken out. The city is laid out in a good design for trolleys (or light rail, as they are more modernly called), since we are in a spoke and wheel instead of a grid. I love the idea of running trolleys (trolley is more interesting than tram or light rail, come on, admit it...) down the major arteries out of downtown, and then smaller neighborhood buses could run exclusively to dump (ahem, transport) passengers out of the neighborhoods onto the trolley lines. Add a few circuit buses to connect trolley lines several miles out of town (the wheel part of the spoke and wheel) and I think we would have a highly functional and FUN transit system that I would want to ride.
The transit advocates say that trolleys are being looked at as an option, and it looks pretty good. I also asked if they have any ad campaigns in the works to counter the public sentiment in town that the bus is only for the poor and those who cannot afford cars, and despite a lot of talk, the answer I got was really a no. I think that is a shame, because I think the public image of public transport is one of the first and most important steps to getting public transport in town up to something sustainable and functional.
On the whimsical side, I picked up a little keychain in the shape of a bus, and when I push the button the headlights come on. They are LED and so pretty bright. I figure I'll keep it in my truck (oh the irony!) as an emergency flashlight.
I also got to ask the transit folks if we are going to get trolleys. We used to have them about 100 years ago, but they were all taken out. The city is laid out in a good design for trolleys (or light rail, as they are more modernly called), since we are in a spoke and wheel instead of a grid. I love the idea of running trolleys (trolley is more interesting than tram or light rail, come on, admit it...) down the major arteries out of downtown, and then smaller neighborhood buses could run exclusively to dump (ahem, transport) passengers out of the neighborhoods onto the trolley lines. Add a few circuit buses to connect trolley lines several miles out of town (the wheel part of the spoke and wheel) and I think we would have a highly functional and FUN transit system that I would want to ride.
The transit advocates say that trolleys are being looked at as an option, and it looks pretty good. I also asked if they have any ad campaigns in the works to counter the public sentiment in town that the bus is only for the poor and those who cannot afford cars, and despite a lot of talk, the answer I got was really a no. I think that is a shame, because I think the public image of public transport is one of the first and most important steps to getting public transport in town up to something sustainable and functional.
On the whimsical side, I picked up a little keychain in the shape of a bus, and when I push the button the headlights come on. They are LED and so pretty bright. I figure I'll keep it in my truck (oh the irony!) as an emergency flashlight.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Show Me the Money
I sat down and watched Obama's State of the Union with a friend and it got me thinking. I heard him saying that he has basically three priorities, in this order:
1. Show me the money: jobs, green jobs, economy
2. Fiscal responsibility: spend the money we have to, be responsible and conservative with the rest.
3. Socially liberal agenda: dont ask dont tell repeal, etc.
Perhaps #3 is more my own interpretation colored by my own bias, but I do think I heard it in there.
I think this mirrors my own approach to both the Time Bank and Transition. First priority: Show me the money. Beneath all the problems, all the differences of opinion, all the conflicts, there is the need for everyone to prosper on the physical level. We need to create wealth. Economic wealth first, as it can be manifested alongside resilient resources and emotional wealth through community building. Take it down to the money, to the wealth, and we have a common denominator motivator that is crucial to everyone. Wealth translates directly into basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, heat. When we as people worry about having those, it is hard to lift our heads up to see a bigger picture because our survival is on the line.
There were moments tonight when I literally said, "This is why I voted for him." I know everyone will pick it apart and try to make it into something less or something inadequate or scary, but I still am glad I voted for him. He is an ox, and he is head down, pulling the plow of his choice. Tonight he said, "Look, I plowed that row, and that row, and tried to plow that row, you have been throwing rocks at me, but I will finish plowing it anyway. And when I finish it, I will plow this row, and then this row, and then this row. Walk behind me and plant more seeds in the freshly turned earth. It is what we want."
1. Show me the money: jobs, green jobs, economy
2. Fiscal responsibility: spend the money we have to, be responsible and conservative with the rest.
3. Socially liberal agenda: dont ask dont tell repeal, etc.
Perhaps #3 is more my own interpretation colored by my own bias, but I do think I heard it in there.
I think this mirrors my own approach to both the Time Bank and Transition. First priority: Show me the money. Beneath all the problems, all the differences of opinion, all the conflicts, there is the need for everyone to prosper on the physical level. We need to create wealth. Economic wealth first, as it can be manifested alongside resilient resources and emotional wealth through community building. Take it down to the money, to the wealth, and we have a common denominator motivator that is crucial to everyone. Wealth translates directly into basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, heat. When we as people worry about having those, it is hard to lift our heads up to see a bigger picture because our survival is on the line.
There were moments tonight when I literally said, "This is why I voted for him." I know everyone will pick it apart and try to make it into something less or something inadequate or scary, but I still am glad I voted for him. He is an ox, and he is head down, pulling the plow of his choice. Tonight he said, "Look, I plowed that row, and that row, and tried to plow that row, you have been throwing rocks at me, but I will finish plowing it anyway. And when I finish it, I will plow this row, and then this row, and then this row. Walk behind me and plant more seeds in the freshly turned earth. It is what we want."
Monday, January 25, 2010
Surviving Our First Conflict
We had our second Steering Committee meeting for Transition last week. It went better. C had volunteered to lead us in a shamanic journey focused on what we as the steering committee should be doing, and then we mind mapped the results. Not everyone was present for that part, but mind mapping and getting everyone on paper in a right-brained graphic representation seemed to help.
The functional power dynamics were much improved, probably because C was leading the journey and mind map process, which caused S step back a little. S is the one who started the ball rolling with Transition, and so for our first meeting, took a bit of a default leader role. S is still using language that implies that she is at the top of the power structure, but I think that is not entirely conscious on her part. It got more pronounced when she felt as if her goals for Transition were being challenged.
I brought up my lack of commitment to teaching about the Peak Oil Apocalypse as we were talking about how to frame Transition in the community. I made the point about how the solutions that come out of Transition are win-win solutions that improve quality of life immediately. They do not require sacrifice or an investment that only pays off once the world falls apart. I think we can frame Transition in terms of benefits and use a carrot instead of a stick. Others agreed with me and fleshed out other benefits that could be used as framing.
S is a very passionate activist who is on fire to teach people about Peak Oil, Climate Change, Sustainability, etc. She has put a lot into raising awareness, and so was a bit triggered by the idea that others on the Steering Committee did not consider awareness raising to be automatically core to our purpose. She got a little upset and made defensive comments about how anyone who does not want to talk about Peak Oil etc. is in denial and she is not willing to be under a gag order.
It turned out okay, though. I let the conversation move on and gave her time to cool down a bit, and then I spoke up about how I thought we were running into a generational difference. I explained how I am generation 9/11 and so am already convinced that the world needs fixing. It's not a matter of denial, it's a matter of okay, yes, Problems, so what are we going to do for Solutions? Why detail the problems when we could be putting that energy into solutions? She was able to hear it.
I finished the meeting by detailing my strengths and why I think I am on the committee (organization, logistics), and then talking about what I think other people's strengths/passions are. I included S's passion for awareness raising, M's commitment to compiling a list of organizations and projects that are doing Transition compatible work, C's focus on process and reminder to us to trust it, and T's training in group processes and reminder of diverse perspectives. It went over well.
I am feeling encouraged.
The functional power dynamics were much improved, probably because C was leading the journey and mind map process, which caused S step back a little. S is the one who started the ball rolling with Transition, and so for our first meeting, took a bit of a default leader role. S is still using language that implies that she is at the top of the power structure, but I think that is not entirely conscious on her part. It got more pronounced when she felt as if her goals for Transition were being challenged.
I brought up my lack of commitment to teaching about the Peak Oil Apocalypse as we were talking about how to frame Transition in the community. I made the point about how the solutions that come out of Transition are win-win solutions that improve quality of life immediately. They do not require sacrifice or an investment that only pays off once the world falls apart. I think we can frame Transition in terms of benefits and use a carrot instead of a stick. Others agreed with me and fleshed out other benefits that could be used as framing.
S is a very passionate activist who is on fire to teach people about Peak Oil, Climate Change, Sustainability, etc. She has put a lot into raising awareness, and so was a bit triggered by the idea that others on the Steering Committee did not consider awareness raising to be automatically core to our purpose. She got a little upset and made defensive comments about how anyone who does not want to talk about Peak Oil etc. is in denial and she is not willing to be under a gag order.
It turned out okay, though. I let the conversation move on and gave her time to cool down a bit, and then I spoke up about how I thought we were running into a generational difference. I explained how I am generation 9/11 and so am already convinced that the world needs fixing. It's not a matter of denial, it's a matter of okay, yes, Problems, so what are we going to do for Solutions? Why detail the problems when we could be putting that energy into solutions? She was able to hear it.
I finished the meeting by detailing my strengths and why I think I am on the committee (organization, logistics), and then talking about what I think other people's strengths/passions are. I included S's passion for awareness raising, M's commitment to compiling a list of organizations and projects that are doing Transition compatible work, C's focus on process and reminder to us to trust it, and T's training in group processes and reminder of diverse perspectives. It went over well.
I am feeling encouraged.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Steering Committee Leadership?
We just had our first Steering committee meeting for the local Transition initiative. It surprised me because it was called with less than 24 hours notice via a long email thread. I was able to make it work, though. Only my potluck contribution suffered; I took a jar of nuts.
There are 6 of us, and the group is mostly women, mostly white, mostly 40s-50s. We had a strict time limit since there was another green-function meeting that evening that most people were planning to attend, so really there was an hour and a half of meeting time. We managed to spend half of that just eating, and then feeling (well, I felt, anyway) alternately rushed and bored by the rest.
I am unclear as to whether we have a "leader" or not. There seems to be a bit of unacknowledged (or acknowledged, perhaps) pecking order. The person who got this ball rolling behaves as though she is the leader. She brought some notes she had made from the US website and suggested? forced? insisted? assumed? that the agenda be her reading through her notes almost verbatim. The rest of us interrupted some, asked for clarification some, and I didn't feel like any of us got very clear.
I think my role in the meeting was to serve as a focuser. Where appropriate and non-challenging to the the power-status of the "leader", I tried to speak clearly and effectively to summarize and to facilitate understanding. I was the one who named and recognized our last conversation as the beginning of the next step of the process we are engaging, suggested a strategy for how we could all come feeling better informed for next meeting, and said where I thought we should start at our next meeting. I then pushed to schedule and iron out details of the next meeting.
I want to be careful not to do anything to assume a (disproportionately) leadership role because I think this needs to be co-created. That said, I find I am also hesitant to fully challenge or effectively criticize the de facto leader's power, since I do not know the politics of it. After processing here, I realize that should be a clarification conversation before we get much further.
I do, however, have criticisms of her leadership thus far, specifically the effectiveness of agenda and time management, though her enthusiasm helps balance it. She really does want this to happen, and I wonder if some of the reason for me to be a part of this is because I am clearer about how to do those things.
I will ponder this and perhaps sketch out my own agenda for next meeting and see how that goes. If I can present it and we can talk about and modify it as a group, I will feel better, I think.
There are 6 of us, and the group is mostly women, mostly white, mostly 40s-50s. We had a strict time limit since there was another green-function meeting that evening that most people were planning to attend, so really there was an hour and a half of meeting time. We managed to spend half of that just eating, and then feeling (well, I felt, anyway) alternately rushed and bored by the rest.
I am unclear as to whether we have a "leader" or not. There seems to be a bit of unacknowledged (or acknowledged, perhaps) pecking order. The person who got this ball rolling behaves as though she is the leader. She brought some notes she had made from the US website and suggested? forced? insisted? assumed? that the agenda be her reading through her notes almost verbatim. The rest of us interrupted some, asked for clarification some, and I didn't feel like any of us got very clear.
I think my role in the meeting was to serve as a focuser. Where appropriate and non-challenging to the the power-status of the "leader", I tried to speak clearly and effectively to summarize and to facilitate understanding. I was the one who named and recognized our last conversation as the beginning of the next step of the process we are engaging, suggested a strategy for how we could all come feeling better informed for next meeting, and said where I thought we should start at our next meeting. I then pushed to schedule and iron out details of the next meeting.
I want to be careful not to do anything to assume a (disproportionately) leadership role because I think this needs to be co-created. That said, I find I am also hesitant to fully challenge or effectively criticize the de facto leader's power, since I do not know the politics of it. After processing here, I realize that should be a clarification conversation before we get much further.
I do, however, have criticisms of her leadership thus far, specifically the effectiveness of agenda and time management, though her enthusiasm helps balance it. She really does want this to happen, and I wonder if some of the reason for me to be a part of this is because I am clearer about how to do those things.
I will ponder this and perhaps sketch out my own agenda for next meeting and see how that goes. If I can present it and we can talk about and modify it as a group, I will feel better, I think.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Transition Research
I've been poking around the Transition website, trying to learn a more extensive definition of what that paradigm entails. Back when I was researching alternative currencies, my housemate and I went down to the closest Transition Town because she thought they had an alternative currency in place. We went to one of their meetings (got there late because we missed the exit off the interstate), only to find that they were only at the stage of first conversations about it. However, I got to be a part of an actual working Transition Town meeting, which I guess is rather ahead of the local transition initiative, since we have only had the one initial is-anyone-interested meeting.
I read through all the 12 steps and 7 buts and list of Guidelines (and everything else, up to poking around in the Webinar by Starhawk), and am still a bit worried about the agenda. Integral to the Transition vision is educating people about the coming hardships of peak oil, environmental degradation and climate change, and economic crisis. Once the "problem" gets established, then we can work on the solutions to build "resilience."
Perhaps I am approaching this from a different generational perspective, or am already a part of the choir and don't need preaching to, or am coming from a second-tier rather than initial-tier solution space, but I am really unsure about the need to evangelize people into the cult of the imminent Peak Oil Apocalypse.
The Peak Oil Apocalypse may be coming. Or it may not be, and we may see rising fuel prices sparking industrial, governmental, and individual innovations that adjust for the adverse effects. I think Peak Oil is a Mytho-Reality that may be a useful construct for some, but belief in it should not be a prerequisite for working on the solutions that come out of Transition.
Basically, the solutions of Transition are about what they call resilience, which translates into local food systems, functional mass transportation, alternative currency systems, conservation, energy efficiency, community building, etc. All of these solutions make individuals and the entire community healthier and wealthier. They make living in a more urban area more sustainable come any disruption of the status quo, and make it more fulfilling and profitable in the mean time. I think it should be an easy sell.
So instead of talking about coming potential disasters, why not talk about the benefits of these solutions? Why not sell them based on what they can do for me today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year? Peak Oil is one unifying idea for why we should work on all of these fronts. Another one would be the fact that the sustenance and resources for the city come from a broad network of resources and that it would be to all of our benefit to also develop a deep network of resources, like sending down taproots, to tap and develop the resources we already have on hand.
I read through all the 12 steps and 7 buts and list of Guidelines (and everything else, up to poking around in the Webinar by Starhawk), and am still a bit worried about the agenda. Integral to the Transition vision is educating people about the coming hardships of peak oil, environmental degradation and climate change, and economic crisis. Once the "problem" gets established, then we can work on the solutions to build "resilience."
Perhaps I am approaching this from a different generational perspective, or am already a part of the choir and don't need preaching to, or am coming from a second-tier rather than initial-tier solution space, but I am really unsure about the need to evangelize people into the cult of the imminent Peak Oil Apocalypse.
The Peak Oil Apocalypse may be coming. Or it may not be, and we may see rising fuel prices sparking industrial, governmental, and individual innovations that adjust for the adverse effects. I think Peak Oil is a Mytho-Reality that may be a useful construct for some, but belief in it should not be a prerequisite for working on the solutions that come out of Transition.
Basically, the solutions of Transition are about what they call resilience, which translates into local food systems, functional mass transportation, alternative currency systems, conservation, energy efficiency, community building, etc. All of these solutions make individuals and the entire community healthier and wealthier. They make living in a more urban area more sustainable come any disruption of the status quo, and make it more fulfilling and profitable in the mean time. I think it should be an easy sell.
So instead of talking about coming potential disasters, why not talk about the benefits of these solutions? Why not sell them based on what they can do for me today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year? Peak Oil is one unifying idea for why we should work on all of these fronts. Another one would be the fact that the sustenance and resources for the city come from a broad network of resources and that it would be to all of our benefit to also develop a deep network of resources, like sending down taproots, to tap and develop the resources we already have on hand.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
New focus
I have deleted my previous posts (which no one ever read anyway) and am repurposing this blog to something hopefully a bit more sustainable. This will now be an account of what I am working on and how it is moving along, any issues I have stumbled into, thoughts and reflections on it, etc.
I am a busy, busy person with several projects set to hit as of the new year. The agenda as it stands now, just before we move into 2010:
NEW PROJECTS:
I am a busy, busy person with several projects set to hit as of the new year. The agenda as it stands now, just before we move into 2010:
NEW PROJECTS:
- build consensus for a time bank in the local pagan community
- initiate first discussions about the potential uses and benefits of incorporating a pagan church in the community. I think a Grove Temple to serve as an umbrella for the local Circles and Solitaries would be good, but we shall see how the discussions go.
- I have volunteered for the Steering Committee of the local Transition group, which should be interesting. It is not 100% core to my values, but is close enough to be worth pursuing and see how it works out. I am concerned that the Transition movement is too focused on evangelizing people to the cult of the Peak Oil Apocalypse when really the solutions that come out of the Transition process are all win-wins that should be easy to sell, but it may just be a generational bias on my part.
- Help plan our pagan wedding this May
- Work on the whole baby-making process (I want a sign for the bedroom door: Making Babies, Do Not Disturb).
- Move to and set up a new community household, this one being more baby focused/centered and probably a good bit more cooperative, especially regarding finances.
- Continue to build my Energy Healing Practice
- Continue in my Dark Moon Circle
- Continue to hold celebrations of the Full Moons
- Continue to make space for my physical healing
- Revive Red Tent events/Pleasure work
- Co-teach the updated Cakes for the Queen of Heaven Curriculum
- Co-Host and plan Open Space Event/Crossroads Gathering
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)