-- / --
The following table is a tentative adaptation and development from related table on Characteristics of phases in learning / action cycles, derived from Arthur Young's Geometry of Meaning (1978). See commentary on learning cycles in Cycles of dissonance and resonance and below. See also alternative table based on clustering strategies and values. See also Typology of 12 complementary dialogue modes essential to sustainable dialogue; confidence ploys; Chinese strategems ; strategic dilemmas
|Typology of 12 complementary strategies essential to sustainable development|
Caring (in principle)
("walking the talk";
"guts"; "being there")
Anthony Judge, with comments of Nadia McLaren and Allan Howard
CommentaryRows: These distinguish between the 12 strategy types based on (1) knowledge of issues, (2) concern for issues, and (3) "being there" -- where the issues are hurting.
Columns: These distinguish between the 12 strategy types based on (A) acknowledging issues, (B) responding to issues, (C) acting on issues, and (D) sustaining action on issues.
Each of the 12 strategy types has a vital function. The challenge is that their complementarity is not necessarily recognized. Certain strategy types are easily neglected, notably those in Row 3 and those in Column D. Because of its lower "dimensionalty", it tends to be easier to engage in strategy A1, for example -- which is coded with the lightest colour in the table. The current challenge is to give meaning and force to strategies of type D3, that correspond to sustainable development -- which is coded the darkest in the table.
The words used to describe each of the 12 individual strategy types are commonly encountered in describing strategies -- notably in the declarations of international organizations. The colour coded diagonals suggest a pattern of progressive engagement towards sustainable action "on the ground":
Meeting participation: It is also fruitful to see each of the 12 strategy types as reflecting the complementary views that need to be expressed at an archetypal strategic "roundtable" (Camelot style). The specific relationships between each such view have been tentatively explored in an earlier study on Toward a New Order of Meeting Participation (https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/contract.php) that charts the Shadowy Roundtable Hidden within every Meeting. This endeavours to show how the seemingly "external" issues tend to be reflected in the different behaviour styles of meeting participants -- and the need for a new kind of participant contract to move beyond such constraints.
Torus representation: As implied above, the Row 1 strategies can also usefully be considered as bordering the Row 3 strategies -- by rolling the table into a cylinder. Similarly the Column A strategies can also be considered as bordering the Column D strategies -- by connecting the ends of the cylinder to form a torus. It is on the surface of this torus that the connectivities between the strategy types might be more appropriately comprehended. A possible representation of this structure, appropriately coloured, has been developed as a hypersphere to illustrate Arthur Young's insights (http://www.hypersphere.com/hs/abouths.html)
Individual action: The relevance of the above typology can also be explored in relation to individual or community group action. The status of a "New Year's Resolution" with respect to personal sustainable development is then clarified -- a demonstrates the nature of the challenge for international action.
Extracts from commentaries to Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential
For further updates on this site, subscribe here