Common Good Collective

Reader

This Reader is an expression of Common Good Collective, a vision for an alternative way, rooted in the act of eliminating economic isolation, the significance of place, and the structure of belonging. Whether you come at this from a place of economics, social good, or faith, we hope these reflections help orient your day in fresh, provocative, courageous ways. And most importantly, we hope these lead you into the sharing of gifts in particular communities—into co-creating a common good.

We read hundreds of articles and select the best ones for you by sending them to your inbox on Thursday.
Read Now Subscribe Now

Shifting the Context of Leadership

This is not an argument against leaders or leadership, only a desire to change the nature of our thinking. Communal transformation requires a certain kind of leadership, one that creates conditions where context shifts:

 

  • From a place of fear and fault to one of gifts, generosity, and abundance
  • From a belief in more laws and oversight to a belief in social fabric and chosen accountability
  • From the corporation and systems as central, to associational life as central
  • From a focus on leaders to a focus on citizens
  • From problems to possibility

 

For this shift in context to occur, we need leadership that supports a restorative path. Restoration calls for us to deglamorize leadership and consider it a quality that exists in all human beings. We need to simplify leadership and construct it …

What has leadership typically meant to you? Choose one of the paradigm shifts in the bullets above. Take a couple minutes to be curious about these shifts. What other way might you lead to make such a shift possible?

 

 

Block, Peter. Community: The Structure of Belonging (p. 85). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Share with a friend

Letting Go of Deficiency Based Thinking

Pharaoh’s anxiety can move communities from their call to care for one another by giving authority over to “professionalism” to assume and meet needs.

Three disabling effects grow from professionalized assumptions of need:

  1.  First is the translation of a need into a deficiency. A need could be understood as a condition, a want, a right, an obligation of another, an illusion, or an unresolvable problem. Professional practice consistently defines a need as an unfortunate absence or emptiness in another…
  2. The second disabling characteristic of professionalized definitions of need is the professionalpractice of placing the perceived deficiency inthe client…[legitimizing those] human beings whose capacity is to see their neighbor as half-empty.
  3. The third disabling effect of professionalized definitions of need results from specialization-the major “product” of advanced systems of technique and technology… [removing] even the potential for individual action. People are, instead, a set of pieces in need, in both time and space. [1]

Think of the work you do. What are ways to see those you serve as dignified and not deficient? What are ways to see your work as a community partnership with the whole person, and not expertise that only cares for a part of an individual? How might you let go of the anxiety of Pharaoh and the “professionalism” that creates a vision of scarcity and deficiency; trading that for a vision of a community abundant with gifts, sufficient for serving the needs of the whole?

 

[1]John Mcknight. The Careless Society: Community And Its Counterfeits (Kindle Locations 486-517). Kindle Edition.

Share with a friend

Time and Urgency

With reference to the common good, we may formulate a tentative conclusion about the narrative of Pharaoh: Those who are living in anxiety and fear, most especially fear of scarcity, have no time or energy for the common good. Anxiety is no adequate basis for the common good; anxiety will cause the formulation of policy and of exploitative practices that are inimical to the common good, a systemic greediness that precludes the common good. “Orange alert” is a poor beginning point for policy!

By the end of the book of Genesis, we have a deteriorated social situation consisting in Pharaoh and the state slaves who submit their bodies to slavery in order to receive food from the state monopoly. All parties in this arrangement are beset by anxiety, the slaves because they are exploited, Pharaoh because he is fearful and on guard. The narrative of the book of Exodus is organized into a great contest that is, politically and theologically, an exhibit of the ongoing contest between the urge to control and the power of emancipation that in ancient Israel is perennially linked to the God of the exodus.[1]

Take a moment to reflect on your calendar. What things are urgent and why? What space do you have planned in your life that is not rooted in “solving” “producing” “maximizing” or “eliminating anxiety?”  This shared commitment to the common good will come at odds with the cult of “busy is better” and “more is better.”  Why not call a friend now and plan a space that is not urgent; space to connect about your dreams; space to enjoy food or laughter, space of freedom in which you are not responsible to control the outcome.

[1]Brueggemann, Walter. Journey to the Common Good (p. 7). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.

Share with a friend

Leaving the Anxiety System

The dream of Moses sharply contrasts with the nightmare of Pharaoh. It is that dream that propels the biblical narrative. Pharaoh and Moses, along with all of his people, had been contained in a system of anxiety. There was enough anxiety for everyone, but there was not and could not be a common good. The anxiety system of Pharaoh precluded the common good. The imperial arrangement made everyone into a master or a slave, a threat or an accomplice, a rival or a slave. For the sake of the common good, it was necessary to depart the anxiety systemthat produces nightmares of scarcity.[1]

Notice the nightmares and dreams you come across in your day. What pops up in your smart-phone feed? What is on the news? What is on the headlines of newspapers and billboards?  How often do you see the face of another and anxiously assume they must be only a threat or an accomplice? Why not consider them a neighbor? How often to you sidle up to a story looking for a reinforcing “gotcha moments” or “sign of death?” Why not look for signs of life?

Now notice how these nightmares influence your body. Do they keep you awake at night and asleep to possibilities at day? Do you feel your chest tighten as you read this?

Take a breath and return to Moses’ dream of an abundant community, a common good. Neuroscientists now teach that a negative thought works like velcro, bonding to our memory in less than a second, while a positive thought is more like teflon, taking as many as 15 seconds to bond to memory. If it took 400 years for the children of Israel to be ready to leave, and 40 years in the wilderness to reframe that living memory, what time will it take for our memory of scarcity to be retrained? To prepare to leave Egypt, would you commit to 5 minutes now to simply breath and note the signs of life in your community and relationships? Could you find others to do this with regularly?

[1] Brueggemann, Walter. Journey to the Common Good (pp. 12-13). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.

Share with a friend

Imagining New Neighborly Covenants

Covenant is a different way of ordering social relationships. It leads to a more intimate, a more interdependent way of being. Contracts are more based on agreement between autonomous individuals.

Our task is to imagine a culture ordered differently. Imagine the human benefit of an alternative to the market ideology that defines our culture. We call this the Neighborly Covenant because it enlivens and humanizes the social order. The Neighborly Covenant is an alternative to a market ideology that has reached its limits, no matter how high the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbs. The map we have really isn’t working. It is visibly flawed. We see in every political campaign a rhetoric designed solely for marketing the candidate, not for meaning. We force all politicians into promising what they can’t deliver. It becomes a concentrated version of the consumer ideology. Citizen as consumer, candidate as supplier. And so we campaign and vote on marketing slogans: liberal, conservative, values, democracy, end poverty, maintain standard of living, jobs, education, marriage this, guns that. These catchphrases are just code words, like advertising, that exploit people’s needs and anxiety for the sake of candidate market share, namely winning their votes. This language is another subversion of the common good and the longing for public servants. We think the wish for an alternative culture will be fulfilled in the ballot box. What we are proposing is language for alternative ways to a covenantal culture. The free market consumer ideology has defined the dominant codes, that particular way of talking about our culture. This is what has led us to stalemate. Our work is to create another set of code words—ones that are active beyond election years and have different substance in defining our communal identity. This is the departure.  

To depart the systems of scarcity and contracts, we must leave for the wilderness, ready to learn a new vocabulary together. Here are just a few phrases from the last week’s readings you may want to use to inspire your own continued departure:

  • How might I trust my community?
  • How am I making, repairing, or sustaining promises?
  • When do I most believe that there will be enough in the face of uncertainty?
  • What habits help me to open to a mystery larger than my certainty and control?
  • Can I dare to make covenants that realize both divine resolve and human agency?
Share with a friend