“I say all of this to say, as we’re out here doing our work we have to be careful about creating an other. In Systemic Thinking For Social Change Stroh makes a brilliant comment at the start of the book. Too often we focus on those we think are creating the problems we’re trying to solve, when we need to look at how we ourselves are causing that problem.”
I commented on an article a few days ago, something I don’t usually do. But I commented because I saw the article slide into something that always concerns me; the creation of an “other.”
The piece talks about an organization looking to use a commons approach to disrupt legal business paperwork by equipping farmers with the knowledge to make business decisions on structure and operations.
Outside of a small concern with unlawful practice, I think this is a wonderful idea. I get goosebumps watching my clients take ownership of our projects (which I insist on).
Then, the piece made remarks about the current system and how it, as well as its lawyers, were part of the problem.
Let’s discuss.
My biggest concern? This narrative isn’t from a systemic lens. Many attorneys operate the way they do because of arcane licensure rules they themselves are subject to, not to mention we live in the most litigious society on the planet. Throw in the fact most attorneys are required to spend upwards of $100,000 dollars on their education (usually hovering over the $200,000 mark total) while working under a system that requires they field and filter through other people’s problems for 80+ hours a week, and you begin to see how and why SOME legal work operates the way it does.
Bigger than this, I find it hard to believe lawyers and the legal system are entirely at fault for how farmland paperwork is handled. What about government agencies? What about intra-community property disputes and dissension? What about the lack of business capacity resources and service providers for certain populations? What about the lack of inter-generational estate planning? The problem is simplified in a way that’s dangerous.
But outside of that, my concern was the number of assumptions the piece made.
Who says a client can’t step into their agency AND work with an attorney? My entire practice is founded on helping people step into their agency and power while setting up their businesses, and I have many friends who do the same. We do group consults, offer more accessible payment arrangements, collaborative facilitating, and take a holistic approach in how we practice.
The ability to empower individuals in and through legal work already exists, and has for many years. Not outside of the current legal system, but in it.
Then, there was a discussion on fees; with a mention of knowledge being kept behind a gate of fees.
Listen, there’s no doubt we’ve become an answer-focused society. Answers to every question you could think of are at our fingertips. Which is amazing, and problematic. Because we now have billions and billions of answers at our disposal.
What I get paid for is not just knowledge, it’s expertise. It’s the ability to distill answers down into something that is relevant to a client and that helps the client understand their stakes, apply what they need, and throw away the rest. It’s the time I spend reading about what’s happening in South Africa or in philanthropy or certain industries so my clients have context for the decisions they’re making, the ecosystems they’re entering into, and opportunities they have.
So long as electricity requires dollars, I have to be paid for that.
To be clear, there are tremendous opportunities with the commons concept. There are also problems. I’m reading quite a bit on permaculture and the application of natural systems to human behavior. Whether we like it or not, the Electoral College, and so many other hierarchal systems like it, exist primarily BECAUSE of some of the problems with a system dependent on the commons. The answer will not be an either/or, it will be a harmonization.
I say all of this to say, as we’re out here doing our work we have to be careful about creating an “other.” In Systemic Thinking For Social Change Stroh makes a brilliant comment at the start of the book. Too often we focus on those we think are creating the problems we’re trying to solve when we need to look at how we ourselves are causing that problem.
Going back to the article, I’m excited about ways to better integrate and empower people when it comes to legal. J/P HRO has wonderful case studies on how it crowdsourced legal paperwork on land boundaries after a Hurricane devastated Haiti.
Still, we have to remember whatever work we do will still be within a system. A system that may not be working, but a system nonetheless. With respect to the article, you could say the current legal system and its players are a problem. But keep in mind, lawyers make up the judges making decisions on the group’s work, and legislators creating policy around that work. Which is to say, they can either make life easier or harder and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
I’m sure each of you has a “lawyer” equivalent to the problems you’re working on. It could be big business, Wall Street, or some form of government.
Yet, you need them in some form or fashion. Whether it’s cooperation, acceleration or just staying out of the way. Just like mega disrupters Facebook and Uber and Airbnb quickly realized they needed some of the “bumps” in their system (Aside: Uber tried the whole “other” tactic and remember that didn’t go so well when they started getting banned from cities entirely. Conversely, Airbnb’s narrative was never about the big bad hotels, it was about helping people find a place when hotels were booked.)
The breakthrough and change will come from a narrative of accomplishing your work with, and not in spite of, the systems you’re working in. It comes with a narrative of innovation and disruption AND inclusivity.
Many of you are revisiting your missions and narratives right now. As you‘re doing so, check to see if you’re creating an “other.” If so, see how your work can turn that “them” into an “us”.
Because in my experience,initiativess founded on an anti- platform have a much harder time than those unified around an inclusive vision.
