Luctor et Emergo LO28725 was: learning with, or without a goal

From: Jan Lelie (janlelie@wxs.nl)
Date: 06/20/02


Replying to LO28713 --

Dear LeO-ers,

Third remark: learning under threat - or how to become Dutch without a
goal. Best not to use a human enemy as a driver in learning.

By the end of the Middle Ages the people inhabiting a small delta in the
North-West of Europe were stuck in the mud. The land had once been
fertile, moist sole: perfect for woods and grain. The woods had been
chopped to build houses and fires and the soil - that had to be drained
for larger crops - had settled. At the rate of about a meter a century,
the soil shrunk. In the beginning this hadn't been too big a problem:
people moved their houses and the churches to a next settlement and left
their cows grazing on the wetlands. The lack of wood was compensated by
drying the peat - that was now on the surface - in the air: this gave a
nice solid brick of organic material to be burned. This did had the
drawback that the soil settled even faster and large part became inundated
- sometimes only in winter, sometimes the year round. Together with the
slow rise of sea levels, this created three big problems: an environmental
problem, an economic problem and a social problem.

These three problems were connected: to get rid of the water, people from
one part of the country started to dig canals. But as the neighbors
protested: now they had to cope with even more water, this was no
permanent solution. For protection, dikes were build, but a small stretch
of dike doesn't help: water will find the weakest part and flow over and
behind the dike. Also, building dikes required a lot of manpower and
money. Money became scarce, because most of the farmers had to switch to
cattle - as grain wouldn't grow in the wet lands. Importing grain had been
a short term solution. One way to earn more money was by making salt.
However, salt was made by digging up vast stretches of shore. This was
dried and the salt was released by burning it. However, the land just
outside the dikes disappeared and this made the sea come closer to the
islands. The nobility at first didn't care much about these problems -
divide et impera - until the revenue by taxation began to fail. Also a lot
of the land was in the hand of the churches. This situation became worse
and worse and - i assume without a clear goal, just by the needs of
survival - a new economic and social order appeared.

In low countries, a new form of self empowered teams developed.
Communities had to co-operate to build and maintain dikes, waterways and -
after successfully implementing these measures - wind-mills. Regardless of
social status, belief or occupation, people had started to form local
democratic institutions, institutions that appointed their own "counts".
The counties had to meet and make plans and legislation together. (They
choose a village near roads, waterways and the dunes, with a large meeting
center build by the counts for pleasure called s-Gravenhage or Den Haag).

Also, the first civil engineers developed. Dropped out from the military,
they started to perfect tools, dikes, ship - industrial production
developed. And a new religion swept the countries. The success of the
measures became clear: agriculture grew up; the new waterways made
transportation cheap, reliable and trade easier; the windmills technology
could be used for other purposes (around Amsterdam there were over 4000
windmills) and the new found freedom was made into new laws and
philosophies.

Now, did this learning had a goal - offensive learning? Or was there
learning because the Dutch had common enemies - defensive learning? The
four elements air, water, fire and earth? Or the Spanish crown, the German
counts, the English navy or the French king? Was this because the Dutch
had a vision and considered themselves the new God's chosen people? Or was
this because there happened to be some smart statesmen - comparable to the
founding fathers of the United States - who devised a system of checks and
balances? Were civil engineers and men of science the reasons - it became
the Age of Reason - for success? Or was it just that the people - in the
streets, on the fields - rose to the occasion? What was the role of
freedom, freedom of religion, thought and schooling? Was it perhaps caused
by the great civil debate - that almost became a civil war - between the
factions supporting the prince and the factions supporting the states? Was
it luck, coincidence, predestination or none of the above?

I think the Dutch example was all of this, every cause and reason. It was
emergent learning, evoked by mythical thinkers and facilitated by
pragmatic leaders. It was caused by a common - wet - ground, that was - at
first - a manmade disaster. It was unique - as an instance, an accidental
coincedence. We - all humankind, because the ideas of this revolution are
still evolving - were lucky. But we can learn some lesson from it.

It may be that the external enemy played a strong or decisive role in the
process - however, that maybe part of my mental make-up. But it is not the
lesson one should learn: create an enemy for effective development. As i
wrote elsewere: people can project their emotions and desires and learn
from the feedback they'll receive. I would assume that the external enemy
is just part of a wider mechanism for coping with anger and angst.

When you use an enemy or a mental picture of an enemy as the motivation to
learn, i think you can learn from it how you look at yourself. The things,
emotions that you do not acknowledge of yourself, the thoughts you
despise, the ideas you are not ready to accept or learn you about yourself
you project on the other. That maybe why adolescents "hate" school - i'm
not qualified to make this generalization. Look at it this way: they
resist their own inner drives, fears, anxieties, developing self-images,
feelings of shame and guilt and as a consequence use the mechanism of
hate, disgust and anger to cope with it. When one looks at the most
important conflicts in the world, you see that most of the times all
parties use the other as the "evil-doer", it is always the incarnated good
against the devilish bad. Both parties will acuse each other of just about
the same. The fact that this has been going on for ages does seem to prove
that not much progress is being made, no real learning. With the exception
of improved weapon systems. Imagine what could have been acheived if we
invested the same amounts of money in other ways. I doubt if we would be
happy, but there might have been less unhappiness.

What i learn from it, is that it is perhaps better to project it on a non
human threat or enemy. Water can take on every shape you want to. It can
be a pack of wolves, a raging storm. You may mention the waves as the
enemy or the silently creeping seepage (Why do you think it is called
"kwel" in Dutch, tormentor, demon, goblin?). A human enemy may respond by
accepting the challenge and answer to the call to arms. (This happened
when the Dutch citizens were petitioning the governess appointed by the
Spanish emperor - Margaretha of Parma - as they were called "gueux" - just
"beggars" by her minister Barlaimont. This insult was turned against the
Spanish and used as a honorary nickname).

I think i'll conclude by saying that using an enemy as a drive for
learning is a kind of regression that is nowadays dangerous to apply. Not
because of the goals, but of the means. It can sometimes run out of hand.
The only exception might be an non human enemy, but, as will be proven in
the next centuries: in the long run, nature, the water will win.

With all regards,

Jan Lelie

Minnigh wrote:

> In another context it is also interesting. This context is in a situation
> where a group is confronted with a common enemy. Here in the Netherlands
> we had from say 900 - 1600 the sea AND the water from the other side (high
> river stands) as common enemy and of course there are many, many other
> examples. In this situation an enemy is the focal point. Maybe not such a
> positive focus as the certificate of the young student.
>
> I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject.

-- 

With kind regards - met vriendelijke groeten,

Jan Lelie

LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work est. 1998 - Group Resolution Process Support Tel.: (+31) (0)70 3243475 or GSM (car): (+31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl info@mindatwork.nl

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>


"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.