Blog

On the weight of what we opt not to say

Everything is certain, until it's not Reflections on a conversation with Andreea John Higgins , March 2023

Seeing beyond the struggle. Without a destination, our collective journey is drift

Differences that matter

Rethinking the rethinking

Rethinking our purpose in an age of shocks 

Is making us hungry. Read about how we re-imagined the global food system in 90 minutes in our latest report, available here . This stuff matters. Rethinking is about making space for hope, changing the story by which we live. Moving from me to us to our whole society. We take things that feel stuck and fixed and paint the picture of how they can be radically better. We do it together as equals, no matter our level of knowledge and experience. At the heart of Rethinking we’ve planted a simple seed of an idea. If we agree where we need to get to, we can find our way there. We can work out how to make change happen when we allow ourselves to imagine how things should be. The essential first step to get over our fear of being stuck in the now, in how things are, in feeling there’s no choice and no alternative – is to say what should be. It sounds banal, but it’s actually quite hard. We had a go during Rethinking food a couple of months ago. We’d spent a little while in a small group talking about access to food, injustice, food deserts, class, food snobbery and a multitude of ills. We were stumped when we tried to turn things around and say what “justice” looks like for an overweight single mum working two jobs and living in a “food desert” in the USA. We could see what the multiple injustices were, but naming what should be took us a little while. What should her life be like? What needs to happen to make that possible? You might recognize that pattern from how we approach challenges in public discourse. We’re very used to denouncing bad things, calling emergencies, demanding change from others. It’s a lot harder to name what should be, what the good society looks like, how we will feel when we’ve righted social and environmental wrongs. And once we’ve done that, I promise you, we’re cooking with gas (or something less planet heating). Over the last two years, we’ve developed a simple three-step method that takes people from hopelessness to action, from lone voices to collectives, from me to us. It’s not voodoo. It’s just humans talking, being brave and being nice. We think it can change society. No apologies for optimism. We’ve done it for football and eating , two things that feel like they belong to our private lives, but that are the most powerful embodiment of our moral systems, because we feel them viscerally. We’ve got a couple of high stakes experiments lined up for the end of 2021. If you’re tired and sad and despondent and you despair at the state of the world, please join us, fund us , talk drop us a line on hello@flaregovernance.eu . We have hope flowing out of every pore.

By Lauren Brown Productivity. It’s one of those words that is thrown around – ‘Oh I’ve had such a productive day’. It’s one I’m guilty of using, on those rare occasions where I feel as if my life is tied up into neat ends. It’s the feeling of satisfaction when you manage to get all those tiny tasks on your to-do list ticked off, eat healthily and manage to engage in one of those ‘mind-improving’ habits you set out to do at the beginning at the year. It’s definitely not limited to this sense of personal growth and improvement either but tied inherently into our working lives and culture. It rarely gives us time for rest but instead ‘more’. This productivity culture permeates our lives and is often held up as the way to have more time – that precious ‘more’ time to spend on things we truly love. But as Anne Helen Peterson points out, its mandate is ‘never ‘You figured out how to do my tasks more efficiently, so you get to spend less time working’. It is ‘you figured our how to do your tasks more efficiently, so you must now do more tasks’’. It’s the sense that if you can get that one extra task done a day, you will be far better off for it. And for many, the rewards that come with these tasks (especially those in precarious situations, for whom productivity is just a way to survive basic economic needs) are maybe not all they seem. It’s also tied up in ideals of self-improvement. ‘Oh, if I could just be more productive with my time, I’ll manage to squeeze in Duolingo’. We are taught we must maximise our output (and our consumption for that matter) to be the best we can be, at all times, in every potential area. But we all have a ceiling to this – no one can work infinitely, and at some point, diminishing returns sets in. There’s only so long I can pretend my endless to do list is improving my life, instead of stressing me out that once again I haven’t done X Y and Z. Whilst I could happily spend the rest of this blog theorising how neo- liberalism is a key part of this (don’t worry, I won’t), this sense of disquiet around working cultures has been thrown into sharp relief by the pandemic for many. Debates over whether workers get more done at home or the office are prominent in the news, accompanied by endless articles on burnout culture. Businesses are testing out four-day work weeks – with the caveat that this is obviously to improve productivity, though admittedly through a method that involves ‘working better’. All of these stories question the idea of boundaries. Whether these be physical (home vs an office environment) or mental (when do we ‘switch off’), the pandemic has led to discomfort over our current working practices. I’m a case in point. During the first lockdown, I felt I needed to produce at ever higher rates in order to ‘secure my future’. So I regularly worked 40+ hour weeks (often splitting my time between my supermarket job, research internships and volunteering) as well as finishing my studies. I thought it was normal, desirable even, to only have one ‘proper’ day off a week. I believed this was the best way for me (a busy person even in ‘normal’ pre-pandemic times) to stay sane, to cope with the ever closing walls of the world. But when I compare this to the third lockdown I experienced here in the U.K., this outlook seems obscene and naïve. I struggled to concentrate through my degree and the drudgery of life in my small four walls. However, I still felt I needed to produce at the levels I had been, to make this lockdown a success. I felt I needed to do ‘more’ – I had the time, why wasn’t I doing it? And that’s what is so all-encompassing about this productivity culture. It’s prevalent and fetishized (what do you mean, you don’t have a side hustle?). There’s, as Pandora Sykes identifies in her book Are We Doing it Right?, a status to being busy and getting lots done. It’s also a way of coping with insecure futures and bleak employment prospects. Admittedly this was heightened by a mild personal panic that came with the realisation I was soon to be an unemployed postgraduate student. But is it healthy? It's hard to admit that maybe you can’t improve in every section of your life. That there’s a point where burnout sets in. That maybe you don’t need to learn French or do that typing class, unless you really do have the capacity and desire for it. Maybe we shouldn’t have to be excessively productive. Maybe we should talk about what we actually want for our futures and challenge what we see as normal. I’m not saying productivity is inherently evil and I can’t pretend I’m not sucked into the machinery that surrounds productivity culture. But as time goes on, the apparent need to produce and consume more is one that becomes more questionable to me. At what point can I say I’ve done enough? I might never be able to fully manage the expectations of myself and workplace culture with what actually works for me, but through talking it through, I can start to try.

By Sam Ajakaiye Change. It’s such a small word which encompasses so much. So often I reflect on the various ways I want the world to change and yet I also find myself in a position where I must question whether this very act is naive. Negative change is surely worse than the status quo. Social (and, to a certain extent, political) conservatism is often predicated on this understanding that change can easily break down the good things we have whilst failing to replace them with anything of equal, let alone better, value. I am also a university student. University students are famed for their rampant desire for change and their youthful radicalism. In my first year at university, I have witnessed how a surge in the use of social media and a significantly greater awareness of international affairs has led activism to become commonplace amongst a generation of ‘Social Justice Warriors’. I am also a 19-year old black man who does not only feel society’s divides but actively studies the histories behind them in his degree. How could I not desire change when I see how hypocritical greed has led (and still leads) to the crippling of continents, communities and families in places like my homeland, Nigeria. Perhaps I wouldn’t because those same studies have bred within me a deep distrust for the leaders who have the greatest potential for change - stories of poor Nigerian governance are too numerous to count. If you are struggling to grasp where I lie on the political spectrum or what I want for the future of the world, welcome to the club! I do as well. However, I will clarify one thing for you - I do want change. It’s just that, whilst I am hopeful for a better future, I’m also sceptical about it. The reason why I am sceptical is that I have seen how the realisation of ideals doesn't just require more money, or more time, or more planning. They require people to change. If people don’t change the way that they act, the way they think about others (and themselves) and what they aspire towards, any real systematic change is not possible. For example, over the course of last year, systematic/institutional racism came to the fore of many debates once again. However, whilst systematic racism may have a completely different effect to interpersonal racism, it is certain that any system which places people at a disadvantage is rooted in decisions made by people, influenced by their personal approach to life and others. My hope for change is not rooted in seeing declarations made by governments which suggest that policy will be more aligned with the future I wish to see (otherwise I would be in love with the UN). It’s not when I see thousands of people gather on the streets to protest about problems of global importance. It’s not even when I am allowed to feed into conversations which are far beyond my pay-grade (I’m a student so I basically don’t have one) and share my visions for the world. My hope for change increases in those situations where all performance is stripped away and people are at their most open and vulnerable, yet I see genuine concern and kindness expressed towards others. When I see people truly empathise with each others’ struggles, regardless of whether they fully agree with their viewpoint, and have proactive and serious discussions marked by mutual respect. That’s because these are the types of spaces in which policy should be formed. These are the types of conversations that allow society to become naturally diverse. These are the types of people who will use influence to actually serve people rather than simply to boost their ego. Now, I will introduce a dose of scepticism here. As a Christian, the idea that everybody is flawed and has their own struggles is rooted in my worldview. However, I think I can confidently say that you don’t need the Bible to understand that humans aren’t perfect. There will always be people in power who are self-serving and people whose altruistic actions are only performative. But why should that ever be an argument to maintain the status quo? Instead, that fact should drive us to create as many open and genuine spaces as possible for people to learn about others and learn from others. We should prioritise creating opportunities for individuals to express themselves openly and then take each others’ concerns and opinions seriously. We should allow for debates which enable us to question each others’ views and find solutions to the different problems we experience and perceive. I am still sceptical about how many people will truly change from these spaces but that’s the thing about change - things will be uncertain. These conversations can only function as a starting point of change but, if we neglect this crucial initial point, how can we expect a different end product?