Inquiry

Inquiry (1st iteration)

For the purposes of this Inquiry, the emergent paradigm that may replace the dominant system according to the ‘Two Loops’ model of change (explained here) is the ‘Kinship Worldview’ (explained here).

_{(Disclaimer: the student is new to this field of study and does not claim expertise, accuracy, originality or to have decolonised their own mind. This is an exploration of ideas.)}

The main question of the Inquiry is to what extent the emergent paradigm (the lower loop in the model) needs to be communicated to those entrenched within the dominant paradigm (the upper loop of the model) to accelerate emergence.

*Communicating into the dominant paradigm*

Many individuals, communities and organisations are practising, writing and working fully or partly within the emergent paradigm. They may produce training or materials communicated to individuals or small groups within the dominant paradigm. However many within the dominant paradigm are arguably still likely to view the emergent paradigm as ‘radical’ or unrealistic and reject it.

Please see the Journal for posts exploring these themes.

Subtheme 1: Relationship between the paradigms and achieving emergence

Do emergent networks and communities need more connection than they are already achieving (despite a rich community of ‘Weavers’)?
Who are the main practitioners in the emergent paradigm and what are they doing?
Who is already ‘bridging’ into the mainstream and how?
Are emergent practitioners speaking into an ‘echochamber’ without meaningfully connecting with dominant worldview holders and if so, does this matter?
Is it enough that the emerging paradigm grows and establishes itself until holders of the dominant paradigm can no longer ignore it? (Is the whole point of the two loop model that the dominant paradigm does not need to be converted, but composted, or is there some middle ground?)

Subtheme 2: Speaking into the dominant paradigm

How can the emergent paradigm be brought into the mainstream in a way that will be accepted? Can it be de-politicised and framed as evidence based and authoritative, speaking to the ‘schema’ of a dominant worldview audience?
How can people who are descendants of colonial societies or with European ancestral traditions reconnect with pre-colonial (pre-Roman and pre-Abrahamic) ancestral traditions without being culturally appropriative of living Indigenous communities? (Here we refer to this as being ‘Rooted’, since the term ‘Western Indigeneity’ can be problematic – see Definition: Rooted.)
Would the emergent paradigm be more acceptable if more people understood their ancient cultural heritage (see ‘Definition: Rooted) rather than seeing indigeneity as something outside their own frame of reference? Would this give their conditioned minds the ‘permission’ to engage with these concepts?
Who is writing about being ‘Rooted’ in a non culturally appropriative way?
Is it insufficient to speak to the intellect of dominant paradigm-holders without them physically experiencing the emerging paradigm through being in nature?

Subtheme 3: A new transdisciplinary research and engagement institute centred around decolonising the dominant worldview and presenting the emerging paradigm to the dominant world within their frame of reference.

Would this be duplicative of existing initiatives?
Could this be sufficiently impactful?
How could such an initiative best seed emerging paradigm practices and thinking into the mainstream economy (nudging it to composting or transitioning)?
How would such an initiative be presented so as to be conformist (stealth intervention) and differentiate itself from existing initiatives that may be perceived and rejected as ‘radical’?
Could a repository of validated, evidence-led study persuade the ‘business as usual’ culture towards a new way of seeing things, speaking in their language so it isn’t too far a leap for them away from their comfort zone?
Would mainstream, respected academics in business, finance, governance, law and the humanities be persuaded to write about how systems might be created differently upon emerging paradigm principles?
Could ‘story-listening’ be used as a method to validate emerging paradigm perspectives from a dominant paradigm perspective?
How would such a body of work best be promoted and socialised with training, events and mainstream media engagement?
Would further interventions be required to lead the intended audience through steps of behaviour change, rather than ‘relapsing’ and rejecting the new paradigm as unfeasible?