• Project Wikis

These are wikis dedicated to a particular IF Discussion Project about an area of emerging social and political concern. During the course of a project the project facilitator might set up a “private” wiki for each discussion panel for the sharing of that panel’s developmental thinking. Prior to the joint panel discussions, only the members of a given panel would be able to view and edit the project material. Once the project panels are ready to share their ideas as a joint panel, the wiki can be made publicly viewable–but with writing or posting privileges restricted to the project panelists. Currently the Towns and Cities Wiki (for the joint panel sessions of “Shaping our Towns and Cities” project) is set up this way. Once the project panelists are ready to turn over their material for public discussion, then the wiki can be set up as a fully “public” wiki where anyone online could view, edit, and add to the material. The Future of the Family Wiki is an example of such a public wiki. This wiki is open for the contributions of anyone who is interested in building upon the ideas that emerged from the project discussions. We ask only that contributors engage with this material in the same generosity of spirit that guided the creation of this material from the beginning. This means that people are invited to make revisions that help to clarify for expand upon the ideas present here. Anyone can add new policy ideas to the wiki as well. But, we ask that people not delete or undermine ideas with which they disagree. Our purpose is to expand the range of policy ideas people might think about–regardless of whether any of us approves of these ideas.

• Guide Wikis

These are wikis dedicated to offering guidance to anyone who might want to engage in some aspect of what the Interactivity Foundation does in any of its three focal areas (IF’s project discussions, the public discussions that are based on those project discussions, and the use of IF’s discussion approach in educational settings). Guide wikis offer the opportunity for users or practitioners to share the wisdom gained from their particular experiences by editing, revising, or generating new material to help others. The Student Guide Wiki, for example, focuses on offering guidance from a student perspective on our student-centered discussion process. It started with entries from Jack Byrd at IF, but is being edited and augmented by students who have worked through these lessons first-hand. We will likely develop a similar wiki from a faculty perspective as well. We are also planning to add an Academic Success Wiki, to share guidance about how to be a successful student more generally (in a way not limited to using IF’s collaborative discussion model). Such wikis can be a powerful tool to enable people to share their experiential know-how with others.

• Internal Development Wikis

As we continually expand and develop our own thinking as an organization about what we do and how we do it, we’ll undoubtedly develop any number of wikis on these various topics. These are likely going to be primarily of internal relevance to IF in the near term. But they may be of interest to those who are interested in exploring more of the thinking behind the Interactivity Foundation. Some of these wikis will show up as publicly viewable.

We hope these wikis will be a helpful way for you to interact with the ideas that shape the work we do and that emerge from the work we do.

–Jeff Prudhomme

The Interactivity Foundation (IF) asks a different question—‘What could we do?’—in its sanctuary projects and public discussions. This is a broader question. It is a question that invites reflection rather than action. And it does not presuppose a certain mindset in which we have identified a certain issue as a problem.

We do not look for or discuss problems per se in our discussions. We explore and discuss areas of concern. Many people think that our immigration policies, for example, are now a problem that this country has to deal with. This is because they presume a conceptual framework—consisting of certain concerns, values, beliefs, and interests—in which it emerges as a problem. But human migration is a broader area of public policy concern in which immigration could be seen in either way—as a problem or not a problem at all. There are, furthermore, many other relevant and important aspects of human migration—such as suburbanization or gentrification—that may merit discussion without yet being recognized as problems.

It is true that certain areas of concern may become problems sometime in the future. But that is part of IF’s mission, namely, to approach areas of concern with a broad view over the horizon and see what could be done about them.

There are times when more practical questions—or questions of ‘should’—take sway. This is when all or at least most of us agree on a certain conceptual framework. But even here, IF provides a wider range of policy possibilities for public discussion than are usually on the table. We encourage consideration and discussion of a broad range of contrasting policy possibilities before the sky starts falling. And we think that when the sky starts falling, it is better for the public to have an opportunity to consider and choose among a wide pool of public policy possibilities.

IF’s public policy reports aspire for the same universality, permanence, and applicability as great literature and philosophy have. The possibilities for public discussion in IF’s Privacy, Anticipating Human Genetic Technology, and Regulation reports are as applicable today as they were the day they were written—and they will be applicable in the future regardless of what political party is in power or what issues we regard as problems. This is because they aspire to answer the broader question ‘What could be done?’ about their areas of concern instead of ‘What should be done?’

People who tune in to us: These are generally people who are interested in discussing policy possibilities pertaining to our areas of concern. Many people care about issues related to our areas of concern. If they make the time and effort to participate in our sanctuary projects and public discussions, or to use our discussion process in their classrooms, then they are part of our audience.

People who want to think about (but not necessarily discuss) policy possibilities: There are different kinds of civic engagement, and there are many people who may be interested in reading and thinking about the policy possibilities in our reports, but not necessarily in discussing them. Some of them may not have the time or willingness to discuss them themselves, but may still be interested in hearing other people discuss them.

Civically engaged people: These are people who are actively engaged with policy issues. They read newspapers; listen to NPR; and watch C-SPAN, Fox News, and other media outlets.

Professionals who work within our areas of concern: These people are generally experts and specialists working within our areas of concern, such as health care workers, scientists, food regulators, etc.

People who are interested in our discussion process: These people may include teachers, other education professionals, people working in development, strategists, people who are interested in deliberative processes, and people working with the internal governance processes of various firms.

Policy makers and their staffs: We do not advocate any of the possibilities in our reports, but the content of the possibilities may still be of interest to policy makers and their staffs—especially since they have a professional obligation to consider a range of policy possibilities.

Different political groups: These include Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals, moderates, progressives, social conservatives—indeed, the whole range of how people in this country define themselves politically. Our reports present this wide range of possibilities.

Public institutions and other NGO’s that are interested in democratic deliberation: Organizations that promote democratic deliberation may be interested in our work, and we may find areas of mutual interest on which to work.

The education sector: IF promotes student-centered college classroom discussions. So we currently work with selected university faculty members, both in our Summer Institutes and in our JFDP training programs, to use our discussion process in their classrooms. We currently have a special interest in Communication Studies, Political Science, Public Administration, and Industrial Engineering (management). But we are also interested in expanding this category to include middle school and high school teachers and students.

IF typically organizes a discussion series—usually 3 or 4 meetings—for small groups of people to explore the possibilities in our reports. The possibilities in our reports emanate from the different concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that Americans might have about an area of concern. They thus present contrasting possibilities that emanate from conceptual differences. Our reports are thus very different from other policy reports, which generally tend to advocate specific possibilities, and rarely explore possibilities that conflict with them. Our reports are not recommendations, or policy proposals, or calls for action, like so many other policy reports and discussions. They are designed to engage citizens in an interactive discussion and to encourage a thoughtful exploration of an area of concern, and a better understanding of why some citizens might support one possibility and not another.

IF creates opportunities and public space for small groups of people to engage in thoughtful discussions. Our public discussions usually involve about eight participants. We usually take an hour or so to explore each possibility, and there are often eight possibilities in a report. Our discussion meetings are often spaced a week or two apart. This gives our participants time to reflect upon the discussions. We do it this way because it takes time to be thoughtful, and because we want to give our participants a chance to thoughtfully explore each possibility. We find that our participants often come back with new insights and new ideas and better prepared to explore the other possibilities in the report with more open minds.

We ask our participants to approach each possibility by trying to appreciate what it means and why someone might propose it. We also ask them to try to consider the possibility from the perspective of someone who might propose it before they begin to assess it from their own perspective. This often means looking at the world through someone else’s eyes and with someone else’s concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests in mind. The point is to try to understand the possibility and its connection to the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that inspired it before you think about where you stand in relation to it.

This is part of what it means to have an interactive discussion. Interactive discussions promote thoughtfulness by encouraging people to seriously consider concerns, beliefs, values, goals, interests, and policy possibilities that may be fundamentally different from their own. We explore each possibility through interactive discussions as we try to understand it. But we do not debate the possibilities or the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that inspired them, since debates tend to polarize the discussion and can even impede understanding as they often are more about attacking and defending a possibility than understanding it.

Our facilitators do not try to lead the group towards ‘the best possibility’ or to show why a certain possibility is the most feasible, or the most likely to be adopted given the political realities. They do not advocate for or against any possibility. Nor do they push for consensus. Our discussions are more about understanding the possibilities, and the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate it, so that each participant is in a better position to make up their own minds for themselves.

Another difference between IF discussions and many other public policy discussions is that IF discussions tend to be more civil. This is partly because they are conducted by skilled facilitators, and partly because the exploratory nature of the IF discussion process and each policy possibility does not really threaten anyone by forcing them to conform or subscribe to the majority’s values and beliefs.

The best way to learn what IF public discussions are like is to participate in them. IF is continuously organizing them in different parts of the country. Do not hesitate to join one.

Throughout much of human history, ideology has served to legitimate conflict.  The opposing side has either been characterized as hideous savage or unsophisticated rube, but the result has been the same:  a framework broadcast by radio, pamphlet, or blog to legitimize everything from the most violent atrocities to the seemingly more mundane dismissals of those who do not see the world just as we do.

Here in the U.S., we prefer to view ourselves as far more sophisticated than, say, our Rwandan or Sudanese counterparts.  Though we might not care to admit it, many people here view those groups as savages.  And while the physical violence enacted in those places has been profoundly macabre, the ideological energy that has driven that violence has been little difference than the seemingly minor incivilities that ideologues create here.  Tea Party protestors spit on black Congressional representatives during the recent health care reform vote.  Highly educated parents who decide that they want to keep non-organic vaccines from potentially defiling their precious children show no such regard for their neighbor’s children.  Extreme liberals or conservatives who are so sure that they know what is best for everyone else that they will apply extreme characterizations to those who forward the opposing viewpoint—confident that finding ways to undermine their opponent’s credibility will ensure that their opponent’s view gets no consideration.  And, indeed, this approach often works.

Left or right, there is a turgid Party Line that must be towed, lest one face public humiliation.  On the Left, any attempt to question explanations of global warming, or, worse, to challenge Acceptable ideas for addressing it will yield the dreaded “Denier” label.  Indeed, the simple use of the term “global warming” will elicit a quick and patronizing correction in some circles:  “It’s climate change.”  On the Right, any acknowledgement that global warming should be seriously addressed will draw similar denunciations.  Though it has been more than a century since this nation has seen large-scale internal violence, this ideological incivility is no less corrosive to our national fabric.

This nation was founded on the ideal that people from a range of backgrounds and perspectives could come together here in this place and find both opportunity and free expression, be that expression word or act.  For many, this ideal still holds true.  For some, it has never quite held true—but still it has remained an inspiring and solemn promise.  That some who have enjoyed the ability to pursue this ideal most liberally might poison the well from which all of us nourish our hopes and dreams is despicable.

At the end of the day, while I might disagree vehemently with your ideas, I will not only defend your freedom to express them but I want to hear and understand them.  That is why I work for the Interactivity Foundation.  We are a small organization, but we are doing work that I believe is has the power to truly enrich our democracy.

Done well, we allow a small group of citizens to come together to share a meal and to have the chance to really hear and consider opposing points of view.  Facilitating such discussions can sometimes be challenging because people are often inclined to argue or, worse, to try to shut down an “unacceptable” view, as if simply hearing such a view is anathema.  Indeed, there is, too often, a religious venom to the bite directed at The Other View.  True believers act as if hearing a contrasting view will sully their ideological purity.

Here at IF, we aspire to model a different approach, whereby citizens can rely upon an skilled facilitator to amplify a range of viewpoints.  This allows participants to leave a discussion with a better understanding of and respect for both their own and their fellow citizens’ points of view.  In fact, most of our participants, given the chance to really hear a range of views, leave the discussion with a profound appreciation for the opportunity to have had such an exchange.  They even report having adjusted their own views in a somewhat different direction.  That, more than anything, gives me hope that a stronger democracy can be had here and that the promises of opportunity and free expression might still hold true.

Where to begin with his stories? Underage Navy veteran of World War Two? Progressive supporter of the farm implement strikes round and about Moline, Illinois? Budding investigative reporter of the early Civil Rights movement, after a detour through a fine arts program? Aide to a visionary municipal leader? Communications advisor to many officials and causes? Or citizen activist on matters large and small? Or picking up the Habitat for Humanity hammer at seventy-plus in the delta country of Mississippi?

This week of fond remembrance has helped me see that he was much more than the sum of these parts. I realize now that he was one of those who I regard as a model of active citizenship. He was constantly engaged and looking to leave things better than he found them. He certainly had a point of view: comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In the wake of shared difficulties (usually reactions from powers-that-be to our assaults on the status quo) he would assure me that one significant measure of a life was the types of people one had managed to make angry. In the wake of problems solved he was just as quick to point out that another measure of a life was the diversity of people one could work with. Let’s say Owen was blessed by abundance in both categories.

It was this abundance in his friendships, partnerships, and information sources that made me think of him as one of my models of civic engagement. For over forty years he participated in a weekly luncheon discussion of issues of the day. His conversation partners in these luncheons included Republican and Democrat leaders, business executives, government administrators, old Milwaukee socialists, labor union officials, peace and civil rights activists, and clergy. But at the end of the day those partners were exchanged for cab drivers, machinists, office workers, and nurses. He could bring something to and learn something from both conversational environments.

Owen had an abiding interest in helping people understand how government worked and what policy meant in every day terms. If you were his favored political candidate he could not abide ill-informed comments out of your mouth. If he was backing your cause he did everything he could to help shape a clear and compelling message based on facts. He held us all to high standards.

Wisconsin noted the passing of another notable character this week. One of the four co-conspirators of the bombing of the Army Math Center on the University of Wisconsin campus in 1970, Dwight Armstrong, died at 58. Owen and Dwight were both opponents of the Vietnam War. They obviously had very different ideas about how to shape public opinion about that fracas. Oddly enough their paths crossed a number of times in some fairly unusual ways, including Owen calling in a labor union favor to have Dwight transferred to a less dangerous cell block in the prison where he was doing time for a methamphetamine manufacturing conviction in the 1980s. No doubt some large part of Owen probably thought of Dwight as a total knot head. At the same time, he knew full well the passions of the time and the chain reactions of bad decisions that young men seem so prone to. Owen was a compassionate grouch.

Owen would have probably found it amusing and predictable that a week after he and Dwight died that the Sunday New York Times devoted forty column inches to Dwight. Owen tallied zero inches in the national record. But here in Wisconsin, Owen’s legacy runs deep. He shaped conversation and touched lives. He taught so many how to talk and argue in ways that brought out the best in them. And he never so much as touched a bomb after his World War Two service.

On the one hand:  what counts as Science?  What makes good science?  Why should we trust the
Medical Establishment when we know they can be affected by Big Pharma $ and/or the desire to
make a career via top publications?  That said, even when clearly rigorous work is done and
published, the public still is reticent to believe it if it contradicts with “the gut impression” or 
emotional anecdotes.  Why is this?  On the regulation side, how do we regulate something like
this?  Can we?  We say that parents have the right not to vaccinate but then set some limits on the
child’s ability to attend public school, but what do we do if there are whole communities that
refuse to vaccinate?  If you choose not to vaccinate your kid and my kid dies as a result of your kid
getting sick and then passing the disease to my kid who hasn’t yet been (or who simply cannot
be) vaccinated, what then?  We now do preventative detention of the most egregious sex
offenders for fear that they might hurt children (a set of some of the most dangerous in
Washington State are now infamously sequestered on McNeil Island off the coast of Seattle).  
Of course, these individuals have already broken the law, which distinguishes them.  But,
how do we balance concern about the well-being of children (or, really, any citizen) on the
one hand with rights to choose with regard to one’s self and/or one’s children?

IF’s approach to public discussion emphasizes that we not get too derailed by a discussion of a
current event/debate/controversy, but I think we could use such things to elucidate core concerns
that then connect with possibilities developed in our reports.  I suspect that the reason Science
and Regulation can seem a bit off-putting to some potential public discussion participants is that
the topics don’t seem to have relevance to them.  To the extent that we can help people to see
connections that connect to their own interests, that would seem helpful in generating what
could be some really useful and intriguing discussions.

If we all agreed about public policy, then there would be little if any need to discuss it. But politics really is about who gets what, when, and how. And we often have different interests, different beliefs, different values, different goals–and, hence, different ideas about who should get what, when, and how. Despite all that talk about the common good and the public interest, our different interests, beliefs, values, goals, and ideas about who should get what, where, and how tend to influence the way we each see the world, and what we each think we ought to do as a society, and what we call the public interest and the common good.

It’s nice to reaffirm our interests, beliefs, values, and goals with people who share them. But many people do not like to talk about how to bake and divide the public pie with people whose interests, beliefs, values, goals, and ideas are different from their own. It can be fun to listen to people do it on television and radio because they can’t hear what we say, and because they can’t answer back. But we often get so wrapped up within our own minds–and take our own interests, beliefs, values, goals, and ideas so much for granted–that we simply cannot imagine how anyone with basic rationality and good intentions could possibly disagree with us. And since we often invest our identities in our interests, beliefs, values, goals, and ideas–and since we often have a greater certainty in them than could ever possibly be warranted–it is not unusual to find that our passions rise as we discuss our differences, and that our voices rise too, and that we are suddenly talking far too fast and far too loud to listen to, let alone to understand–let alone to digest and rearrange our own constellation of interests, beliefs, values, and goals in relation to–what anyone else has said.

This is why political discussions on television so often turn into shouting matches. It is why political rallies so often seem and sound more like football games. It is why we so often seem to be talking right past each other. And it is why it is almost always good to have a facilitator.

A facilitator can slow down a discussion so we can listen to what has actually been said. He or she can stop a debate, and the felt need to have an immediate and snappy comeback line, just long enough for us to hear what someone else has said and to explore what it means. This does not often happen on television or at political rallies or on internet blogs and discussion threads. It takes a bit of time and discussion to understand our differences. But the more it happens in a face-to-face discussion, and the longer that discussion continues, the easier it becomes to see the world from someone else’s eyes, and the more difficult it becomes to demonize people simply because they have interests and beliefs and values and goals that differ from our own.

They will, of course, still have their interests, beliefs, values, goals, and ideas–and we will still have ours. But the less we blame each other for having them, the more likely we are to approach each other as human beings, instead of as Democrats and Republicans, and the more likely we will be to understand exactly what they are. Indeed, the more we talk with other people about our political differences, and the more we actually hear what they say and try to understand why they are saying it–instead of assuming that they must be liars, thieves, or dummies–the more likely we all will be to address our real concerns. And the more we do that, the easier it will become to make collective decisions in the face of our very real differences.

This, or something very much like it, is what we are trying to do at IF.

But it is a fundamental error to value blogging because it might create opportunities for discussion.  Blogging might engender discussion, that is true.  But not all discussions are created equal.  Not all discussions are exploratory; not all are developmental.  In order to ensure that they are, IF goes to great length to facilitate its discussions.  That is what we do.  Discussions on a blog will rise to the level of IF’s other discussions only if and to the extent that they are likewise facilitated.

The notion of blogging as creating opportunities for discussion rests on a quantitative view of communication: the more communication, the better.  But that view is fundamentally at odds with the very raison d’etre of IF.  Not all opportunities actually lead to discussion, and not all discussions are equally useful.

Trying to create discussion groups by recruiting individuals is hugely time consuming.  And the groups fall apart without constant tending.  This is because discussion is rarely glue enough to hold groups together. This is why it almost always makes sense to start with groups that are already there, that have their own religious, social, economic, political, or recreational reasons for existing.  We’ve had it all wrong: rather than building our own social capital, we should be building on that of other groups.

If we do, we will be relieved—more or less permanently—of the need to pitch, sell, and explain the IF Process.  Our community contacts will do that for us.  We won’t have to do it 101 times on the phone or via email to get people to participate.  And, once we’re in the same room, we’ll be able to get on with the discussions.

If we do, we can build on the shared values and connections in the room, rather than thinking we need to create them.

If we do, we can look forward to repeat invitations—the group will still be there, held together not only or primarily by its interest in discussion but by whatever brought it together in the first place.

The community organizer who can deliver public discussion groups at the drop of a hat is the El Dorado of facilitating public discussions.  You can become that person if you work hard at it.  Or you can go find one.  I found mine at the local Rotary club.  She is willing to use her connections for me because she trusts me personally and endorses our work.  She’s the bridge between me and the community.  People here respond to IF invitations not because they know me or IF or have a burning need for civic discussion; they respond because my contact asks them to.

It’s not what you know.  .  .