I've appreciated getting to know your work and have been drawn to pluralism for a while, mainly because your first point feels so true to me... the only other option is war/elimination of the other. But it was your third point that almost made me cheer in a public coffee house. Like your friend, I've spent a lot of time in the peacebuilding space, and I'm pretty convinced that the idea of it being a "field" isn't helpful. It's not that people doing such work don't have things to talk about together. But that good element can so quickly become limiting/othering. And so much of it is rooted in a quest for academic legitimacy that doesn't help anyone. How can we keep the conversation focused and yet also expansive and inclusive? Thank you for your super helpful framing.
Jason, thanks for reading and your feedback. I am glad to hear that the point I brought in from our peacebuilder resonated with you given your experience in the field.
Thanks for bringing us these reflections and I agree wholeheartedly with the 3rd point. I fear that setting pluralism as a field to belong to, rather than a mindset and heartset to cultivate, makes the work of civic renewal harder. In addition to the jargon and blindspots that your colleague notes, the field approach professionalizes values and activities and suggests that credentials are needed to engage in this work, neither of which should be the case. The "network of networks" is right, and everyone can practice pluralism in classrooms, workplaces, kitchen tables and bar stools. Further, pluralism is on an on/off switch, but a dimmer and it is worth recognizing that some people are very comfortable with pluralism in some civic spaces, but less so in others.
Liz thanks for this important point, and + one to your comment about the need to practice pluralism in "classrooms, workplaces, kitchen tables, and bar stools."
Thanks for these reflections Daniel. You capture well the tension between civic renewal and political resistance. I agree that civic renewal work needs protection from the urgency and heat of political resistance.
The "pluralism or war" framing caused me to pause. America has maintained a kind of surface-level peace without true pluralism for most of its history through the suppression of certain voices. The current moment feels different because demographic and power shifts have made the old approach of "peace through exclusion" increasingly untenable, particularly since more of the folks whose voices are now being excluded happen to be in the dominant demographic group. That's not to say the core assertion that the absence of pluralism will lead to war is incorrect, maybe I just feel the need for us to situate the analysis in historical truth.
On the field point, how do you think about the tension between embracing the organic, fluid nature of pluralistic work with funders' very real need for frameworks to understand their investments? As someone who has sat on both sides of this table, I know firsthand how funders (myself included) often struggle to open our minds to proposals we can't quickly situate within our mental models. While we could challenge funders to live in the nuance, the reality of managing competing priorities necessitates some simplification. Perhaps the question isn't whether to define the field, but how to create frameworks flexible enough to include vital work while still providing the structure funders need to make decisions?
Justin, thanks for reading and this very good point on finding a way to enable "permeability" if that is a word while also allowing for funders to have frameworks they can use to operationalize their priorities and develop coherent proposals. I am not sure about the answer but I like your reframing of the "how" question very much.
Thanks for reading Elizabeth – given the work that you are doing I am glad to hear that you find points 1&2 helpful. I'd look forward to learning more about the work you are leading in Dayton soon.
I've appreciated getting to know your work and have been drawn to pluralism for a while, mainly because your first point feels so true to me... the only other option is war/elimination of the other. But it was your third point that almost made me cheer in a public coffee house. Like your friend, I've spent a lot of time in the peacebuilding space, and I'm pretty convinced that the idea of it being a "field" isn't helpful. It's not that people doing such work don't have things to talk about together. But that good element can so quickly become limiting/othering. And so much of it is rooted in a quest for academic legitimacy that doesn't help anyone. How can we keep the conversation focused and yet also expansive and inclusive? Thank you for your super helpful framing.
Jason, thanks for reading and your feedback. I am glad to hear that the point I brought in from our peacebuilder resonated with you given your experience in the field.
Thanks for bringing us these reflections and I agree wholeheartedly with the 3rd point. I fear that setting pluralism as a field to belong to, rather than a mindset and heartset to cultivate, makes the work of civic renewal harder. In addition to the jargon and blindspots that your colleague notes, the field approach professionalizes values and activities and suggests that credentials are needed to engage in this work, neither of which should be the case. The "network of networks" is right, and everyone can practice pluralism in classrooms, workplaces, kitchen tables and bar stools. Further, pluralism is on an on/off switch, but a dimmer and it is worth recognizing that some people are very comfortable with pluralism in some civic spaces, but less so in others.
Liz thanks for this important point, and + one to your comment about the need to practice pluralism in "classrooms, workplaces, kitchen tables, and bar stools."
Thanks for these reflections Daniel. You capture well the tension between civic renewal and political resistance. I agree that civic renewal work needs protection from the urgency and heat of political resistance.
The "pluralism or war" framing caused me to pause. America has maintained a kind of surface-level peace without true pluralism for most of its history through the suppression of certain voices. The current moment feels different because demographic and power shifts have made the old approach of "peace through exclusion" increasingly untenable, particularly since more of the folks whose voices are now being excluded happen to be in the dominant demographic group. That's not to say the core assertion that the absence of pluralism will lead to war is incorrect, maybe I just feel the need for us to situate the analysis in historical truth.
On the field point, how do you think about the tension between embracing the organic, fluid nature of pluralistic work with funders' very real need for frameworks to understand their investments? As someone who has sat on both sides of this table, I know firsthand how funders (myself included) often struggle to open our minds to proposals we can't quickly situate within our mental models. While we could challenge funders to live in the nuance, the reality of managing competing priorities necessitates some simplification. Perhaps the question isn't whether to define the field, but how to create frameworks flexible enough to include vital work while still providing the structure funders need to make decisions?
Justin, thanks for reading and this very good point on finding a way to enable "permeability" if that is a word while also allowing for funders to have frameworks they can use to operationalize their priorities and develop coherent proposals. I am not sure about the answer but I like your reframing of the "how" question very much.
Thank you for this. I think points 1 and 2 are especially helpful! I’ve bookmarked to return to this and think more.
Thanks for reading Elizabeth – given the work that you are doing I am glad to hear that you find points 1&2 helpful. I'd look forward to learning more about the work you are leading in Dayton soon.