The World We Want

Invitation to The World We Want Masquerade Ball

The Happy Tutor, in a private communication, informs me that he has  convened a World We Want Masquerade Ball in the Catacombs under.wealthbondage for those revelers who prefer a playfully "unsafe space" for philanthropy and civic engagement. I will make sure the masked revellers stay out of earshot. Still, it is all good. The World We Want has something for everyone, I guess. 

The World We Want, LLC

"The World We Want, LLC," by Candidia Cruikshanks our patron and owner. Thank you, Mistress, for letting us create The World We Want under.wealthbondage.com for you to own. You are so generous!

Viral Marketing of The World We Want

Bliptv:

"theworldwewant.org is a viral web project. Blog the world you want today."

Well, seems like the world we want has taken on a life of its own. If the world we want were a brand, who would own it? Would we get shares? Or, a t-shirt? 

Social Class and Social Cohesion in the World We Want

"Is man no more than this? Consider him well." - Lear

Over at Omidyar.net Chris Corrigan suggests that we launch Peter's book for him and invite him to participate if his schedule permits. I wish Peter would get permission to publish a few chapters to the net, so we could see the specific ideas of his interviewees. There will be a big cultural divide, I am afraid, between his high level funders and us online scuffy types. How he can get these two cultures ("high" culture and "flat" culture, or "hierarchy" and "wirearchy") to interact will be a big challenge. I notice that many of the bigshots from philanthropy who showed up at Omidyar.net in the first few months have now dropped out. Social cohesion is hard between social groups, much less social classes. Yet that is the very challenge of democracy. If each essay is critiqued by nobodies online, will that draw us closer together, high and low? I hope so. First Carnival, then Lent. No King without a Clown. So hierarchy is preserved through its ritual abuse. Under our robes or rags what are any of us but "a poor, bare forked animal"?

Lear, on the heath, stripping himself naked in the storm, having given his kingdom away in an act of misquided legacy planning. He is stung to madness by the sight of a man in rags.

Why, thou wert better in thy grave than to answer with thy uncover'd body this extremity of the skies. Is man no more than this? Consider him well. Thou ow'st the worm no silk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, the cat no perfume. Ha! Here's three on's are sophisticated! Thou art the thing itself; unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art. Off, off, you lendings! Come, unbutton here. (tearing off his clothes.)

In the World We Want perhaps we can meet acknowledging one another's humanity across the growing gap between Legacy Leaders and Paupers. May we, at least for purposes of civic conversation, put aside differences of rank, wealth and privilege? Or would it be better if we losers stick to our own kind? (Let's see what Peter decides.)

Scruggs on Funding The World We Want

Scruggs writes,

People who give major assistance to The World We Want will be pilloried by David Horowitz and Kaye Grogan. The flying monkey enforcers of wingnut political correctness will shoot flames out their assholes in outrage, even if this is as tame and lame as MoveOn. Pew's milquetoast campaign reform drew a mephitic blast from the outraged bowels of the Wall Street Journal's opinion page. There is no room for people who will want to triangulate this for benefit. In the present context, the proposal as it stands now is going to be viewed as threatening by the people who sign the paychecks of the professionally upsettable.

Who would be willing to even lend their good name to such a thing?

Well, if you look at the contributors to the book, they are mostly mainstream "persons of substance," with the notable exception of the Happy Tutor who rears his ugly head from the Dumpster in the final chapter. As for his Dumpster-Dwelling friends, they are here only by sufferance. Whether the World We Want includes losers and trouble-makers remains to be seen. The parade of dignitaries may well move on right around us, unseeing, talking of the World We Want, passing us by as invisible. Happens all the time, right? Peter does refer people here, for reasons that surpass my understanding.

This raises the whole question of "tribes." How can The World We Want accommodate many tribes, including those antithetical to the Happy Tutor and Crew? The goal is not to turn red against blue, nor to do a Dick Minim dance of moderation, but to find something of that old red, white and blue, in which mortal enemies through contentious conversation become civic friends. Still possible? I'll take the chance. There is a lot to like about David Horowitz. (His work ethic, I guess.) Conservative thinker, William Schambra, has contributed in the past (October of 2003) to a symposium on "Trust and Transparency: Philanthropy as Private Action in Public Space" organized by Peter. I truly do hope that Bill finds his way here. The quality and passion of the discussion is what is exciting; when the strawmen show up as real people, it gets much more instructive all around.

World We Want "Reunions"

In a personal communication Michael Herman suggests that in addition to a book tour and classes or seminars on The World We Want, Peter might consider a "reunion" of attendees. They might gather in Open Space around specific topics to ask what they might do towards the world they want. Through a web portal, success stories, and ongoing publications Peter could document what works. I love this idea, of followup that becomes more and more practical, as people team up to do together what none of us can do separately. Thinking of what will happen after a meeting is the best way to have a good meeting. So, the "reunion" idea could be central to the original book tour and seminars. ("This is the beginning, not the end.")

Looking back on the convening of the original Open Space for Giving in Chicago a couple of years ago with Michael, I recall what "held us back." Each of these items would be easier to address through a national network with Peter's leadership.

1. Invitation - This took us months as the co-conveners tried to create something open-ended but coherent. Peter could provide a proven template.
2. Location - The portal could provide suggestions and examples of what has worked for others with sample costs. (Best to have a site where people do not need cabs or cars, but can walk around to find places to eat, and hotels in various prices ranges. Best to have a nonprofit site, like a community center, church basement, university building.)
3. Deduction - In our conference, my mini-grant of $1,300 was not deductible. If the micro-grants to fund the local meetings were run through some kind of nonprofit fiscal agent locally or nationally, the gifts would be tax-deductible. The $500 that I would have saved could have bought a meal out together for the attendees or could have given Michael a thank you for all he did.
4. Credibility - Michael spent hours and hours trying to win credibility for our crazy idea among funders and foundations in Chicago. They had no idea who I am, and were skeptical. Add to that our ever-evolving invitation and we were lucky to get a foundation to lend their name at all. Peter could easily smooth the way, with a boilerplate intro letter. It would create instant credibility for those trying to pitch in at the local level. The local foundation community would see immediately that this is a seriously considered effort, one that their peers have endorsed in other communities.
5. Courage - A month or so before the Chicago meeting, I almost called it off, because so few had signed up. I was embarrassed that Tracy Gary and other notables had committed on my word. I was afraid Tracy would fly in and I would be the only one there. She told me, "Have faith; if no one else comes, we will enjoy each other's company. Don't flinch." With a national series of events, the conveners will not have to work totally on faith. They will have a proven template, support from prior conveners, and a record of success from earlier meetings.
6. Follow-Up - The original Giving Space group has kept in touch now for two years through a listserv and through Omidyar.net, but it would have been even better if we had known in advance where and how we would continue the conversations.
7. Critical Mass by Topic - This may be the biggest improvement area. We had a great group in Chicago, and it was pretty diverse by area of interest. That made for a great meeting but not for focused follow-up. If we had a national series of local Open Space meetings, and if we posted the "findings" and had a database set up to find people by similar interests, we might then have action-groups form spontaneously by affinity and role. (Environmental activists, organizers and funders, say.)
8. Big Dream: What inspires is the big dream that somehow our seemingly minor efforts will build on another and sweep the nation, moving us as a country closer to our ideal community. Hard to hold that dream when you are alone or one of 40 huddled in Open Space, but with dozens of groups of 40 springing up all over the country, networked together, and sharing their ideas and their active energy, the dream might actually come true.

Michael chipping his ideas here is a good example of hope that dies hard. Thank you, Michael.

Inviting Philanthropy

From experienced Open Space facilitator, Michael Herman, thoughts on how to stage a successful Open Space meeting around philanthropy or The World We Want. Also from Michael a model for how to invite interested persons to an Open Space gathering. 

Podcast Study Guides for The World We Want?

Via comment from J.J. Commoner here, how about podcast study guides for The World We Want?

Leveraging Technology for Community Activiation

Technologist Gerry Gleason in "A Network of Invitation and Acceptance," places Peter's book within an ongoing history of invitations, conversations, and meet-ups. Under.wealthbondage.com,  where Gerry created the post, was set up in Civicspace by a Dumpster-Dwelling friend of The Happy Tutor's at no cost, other than a few dollars a month in server expense. The installation uses only a fraction of the available functionality, but shows some of what can be done. Additional modules include a database, mass email, polling, group calendar of events, free blogs for members, and fundraising (gift acceptance). 

What technology or functionality would best support local meetings?
What matters, it seems to me, is what happens before and after a convening, otherwise the event will just come and go. How can we use easy tools online to create a wave of real world friendships, conversations, community activation, and specific projects? (And how can we be sure that we don't end up just including the tech savvy?)

Are there specific sites that might serve as "models" for this effort?

A View from the Dumpster

The World We Want discussed by a self-styled Dungeon Master to the Stars living in a Dumpter out behind Wealth Bondage. (A parable of the parlous state of democracy in a country ever so responsive to money, and ever so deaf to the voices of ordinary citizens.) Warning adult themes!