5. Ethics for Personal and Social Transformation

PREPARATION

Objectives of this Module:

To understand the nature of crime and corruption and how they impact people.
To understand cardinal human values and ethics.
To understand the power of one-on-ones and to practice them.

Check Your Understanding:

At the end of this module, you should be able to explain the following concepts:

What are corporations tempted to do to increase profits?
Why are moral principles important?
What are cardinal human values?
Why is just telling the truth and not harming anyone not enough?
What are the ten universal moral principles?
What is the difference between ahim’sá and nonviolence?
How can the truth harm others?
When can honesty and integrity cause problems?
What is wrong with the average North American lifestyle?
Why is service essential for activists who want to change the world?
What are the four key goals of one-on-one interviews?
Define Prout in one minute or less.

CIRCLE-TIME

Excitement Sharing:

“What is something good that has happened in your life since we last met? Or would anyone like to read from your journal or share your recent activities?”

The Social Reality: Corruption

Our society values money a lot. We commonly value things by how much money they are worth. A new sports car is worth a lot. A home is worth its resale price. To many people, a forest, unless they own the land it’s standing on, isn’t worth anything. Tragically, we often value people, too, by how much money they are worth.

In our society, many people logically decide that getting a lot of money is their goal. The trouble is, the more money a person gets, the more she or he wants. Even very, very rich people are often still hungry for more. If you are trying to quickly make as money as you can, you will probably hear about ways that are immoral or illegal. Millions of people are in prison around the world, many of them because of their desire to get rich quick.

Corporations also have the goal to make as much money as possible, or, in economic terms, to maximize profits, the “bottom line.” Corporations try to keep costs low, including wages, while producing the maximum profit for their shareholders every three months. The competition is fierce, so the temptation to cheat, to lie, or to bribe, constantly dangles in front of their eyes.

In the 1980s, partly due to the savings and loan scandals, a new type of book appeared for the first time: “business ethics. Today there are hundreds of titles about business ethics, and every university economics department offers courses in business ethics. These courses highlight the need for social responsibility and curbing selfishness. Yet corruption and insider trading scandals still occur.

Sometimes our values conflict. For example, in Latin America, the system known as ‘compadrazgo,’ or godparenting is quite common. A wealthy patron is honored and admired if he or she is able to give material assistance to many people in the community. However, the people who ask the patron for money to help pay for a child’s education or for medical care for a relative do not inquire as to the exact nature of the patron’s “business.” So by giving small donations to a lot of people, a corrupt official or even a drug lord can become a respected leader of the community.

The Social Reality Discussion Question: Crime and Corruption

Our question now is: What is your opinion of crime and corruption? How do they impact you? How do they make you feel?

We will go around the room, and ask everyone to say briefly what your opinion is of crime and corruption, and how they make you feel. Please speak for just one minute each.

[After everyone has spoken, 10-15 minutes] Excuse me, please, but we’re going to stop this discussion now, only because, as usual in this course, we want to focus on the solutions.

Cooperative Game – Moral Dilemmas:

“Sit in small groups of two or three. Each group should choose two of the following questions that have not been chosen by another group. Develop a collective answer to the questions, explaining your reasons. While the questions are simple, the answers often are not. Consider if your answer would change in different situations, and if so, why. It’s important that every member of the group voice their opinion, because different people will think of different factors that might change your answer. Your goal is to reach consensus on your collective answers.” (Different questions can be created for different societies.)

Is it all right to kill people?

Is it all right to kill animals?

Is it all right to fight for social justice?

Is it all right, if someone does wrong to you, to get revenge?

Is it all right to lie to avoid personal problems?

Is it all right to lie if it will help someone else?

Is it all right to criticize someone when they are not present?

Is it all right to cheat in school?

Is it all right to cheat on your partner?

Is it all right to accept a bribe?

Is it all right to give a bribe?

Is it all right to steal to help someone else?

Is it all right to accept a gift if it was stolen?

Is it all right to accept a donation if you are not sure where the money came from?

Is it all right to make as much money as you can?

Is it all right to spend a lot of money to throw a big party?

Is it all right to watch pornography?

Is it all right to earn money making pornography?

Is it all right to earn money selling alcohol and cigarettes?

Is it all right to earn money running a gambling casino?

Is it all right to consume whatever drugs you like?

Is it all right to earn money selling whatever drugs you like?

Is it all right to do whatever you want as long as no one finds out?

After every group has reported, “These questions are designed to elicit complex moral thinking. Our moral values should be like a compass that always points us in the right direction—would you agree with this? Why or why not?”

Prout’s Vision: Cardinal Human Values

P.R. Sarkar proposed a moral framework based on “practical wisdom.” However, throughout history, most moral values have reflected the interests of the rich and powerful. Each ruling class has exploited other classes through force and cunning, creating rules and justifications for those rules to suit their interest. The rich have not made rules or moral guidelines to limit their own wealth.

Conventional rules-based morality, expressed in terms of absolutes, ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts,’ is inadequate to solve most moral questions in the relative world. If a deranged gunman is shooting innocent people, the Biblical commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” seems out of touch with the need to stop the gunman as fast as possible at any cost, in order to save other lives.

Human history is about exclusion and power. It is natural that people react if morality is imposed on them. When people are coerced to obey dogmatic rules, some respond by rejecting all morality entirely.

This leads to selfishness, greed, and indifference to the suffering of others. A materialistic outlook tends to breed corruption and dishonesty at every level of society, draining economic resources and breaking apart communities.

To find answers to complex moral questions requires deep reflection and strength of character. Sadly, these qualities are now rarer in our hectic world than ever before.

P.R. Sarkar appealed for a moral framework based on “practical wisdom.” He insisted that in choosing the correct way to act in different situations, the intention behind each deed is of great importance.

Cardinal human values include kindness, honesty, courage, mercy, humility, self-restraint, and compassion. These qualities are considered virtues in every society and religious tradition. Adhering to these values gives meaning and enhances the beauty of life, transforming people and society. Cardinal human values challenge us to protect the weak, avoid harming others, overcome selfishness, and denounce the lies of those who abuse their power.

In 1995 the American Psychiatric Association published a study on criminal psychology. The research report concluded that the most common factor among habitual offenders was the tendency to lie (Galeano 2001). This character defect they share with some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet! Political leaders lie to their citizens; corporate directors cheat on their accounts and tax statements; lawyers lie for (and to) their clients; advertisers falsely exaggerate product benefits; and the world’s most sophisticated military forces demonstrate the maxim that: “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

Another moral problem facing our society is that TV and film today commonly portray people cheating on their spouse. This topic was taboo in the media forty years ago. By promoting this idea today, the media contributes to deceit, betrayal of trust and broken promises. Family members, especially children, suffer as a result.

Creating a secret life, whether it be with alcohol or drugs, illegal schemes to make money, illicit relationships, or anything else, results in living a lie with others and lying to ourselves that everything is fine. To succeed in meditation, we need a clear conscience. This means being honest with our family, friends, colleagues, and, most of all, ourselves.

Prout recognizes the existential value of every being; this value supersedes the social value or utilitarian value of a being. Hence every life has spiritual potential and should be preserved and encouraged as far as possible.

Throughout history, a gradual trend has emerged to establish a more permanent set of moral values based on the intrinsic value of human life. The struggles against slavery, tyranny, injustice, and poverty reflect this. Finally, all cardinal human values arise from the evolution of consciousness and the spiritual urge to find oneself.

One important contribution Sarkar has made to the ethical debate is his emphasis on balancing individual and collective interests. He proposed ethics and the sense of justice as the basis of idealism and inspiration in spiritual life, and that they are essential to create a better society. Sarkar stressed that while morality is the beginning of both the individual and collective movement, in itself it is not worthy of being the goal of life:

The morality of a moralist may disappear at any moment. It cannot be said with any certainty that the moralist who has resisted the temptation of a bribe of two rupees [Indian currency] would also be able to resist the temptation of an offer of two hundred thousand rupees… It cannot be said that the ultimate aim of human life is not to commit theft; what is desirable is that the tendency to commit theft should be eliminated (Sarkar 1977).

To restore pramá (dynamic balance) in our communities and in our personal lives, we need a clear code of moral conduct. We need to broaden our sense of right and wrong to include “right living” in the world.

Ten Universal Moral Principles

Sarkar adopted ten ancient ethical principles of yoga (Sarkar 1977). The first five are called Yama, which means, “controlled contact with others”—they show us how to live in peace with others. The second five principles are called Niyama, which means “controlled conduct for self purification”—guidelines for how to be at peace with oneself. These two sets are complementary, and they are both constructive and positive. Because Sarkar viewed ethics as tools for liberation and not for suppression, he re-interpreted these principles, discarding old dogmatic interpretations. Universal in nature, they can be an effective guide in wisely choosing what to do in any time, in any place, and with any group of people.

The first five principles of Yama, or social values, are:

Ahim’sá: Not to intentionally harm others with one’s actions, words or thoughts.

Daily life involves struggle and the use of force. The mere acts of breathing and walking result in the unintentional deaths of thousands of microorganisms. Sarkar differs with some fundamentalist religious interpretations of ahim’sá by teaching that this principle does not preclude the use of force for survival, for self-defense, or to defend others.

Prout insists that ahim’sá includes a people’s right to resist foreign invasion as well as structural or institutional violence. It does not mean literal nonviolence at all times (as some, including Mahatma Gandhi, have interpreted it) because that is both impossible and impractical (Sarkar 1960).

The most important part of ahim’sá is one’s intention. Individually, it means striving to avoid hurtful thoughts, words and actions. In fact, every violent act begins with a thought, so if thoughts of anger or hatred arise, one should intentionally substitute positive thoughts until the angry ones fade away.

Ahim’sá recognizes certain actions as so inimical they must be stopped at any cost. Individuals or organizations that threaten murder with a weapon, kidnap someone, steal, burn another’s property, or poison someone are “human enemies.” So in the example mentioned above of a deranged gunman killing innocent people, in order to save lives, the killer must be stopped as quickly as possible. Ahim’sá would not rule out killing the gunman in this case if it was the only way to save others.

A nation needs an armed police force and military for its security. Proper training and discipline are important to instill this principle of ahim’sá in protectors of the peace. They must resist the temptation to use their authority or their weapons to punish or kill someone out of anger, hatred, or a lust for power; rather, their intent should be to protect everyone.

Satya: To use one’s words and one’s mind for the welfare of others; benevolent truthfulness.

Prout is based on this spirit of benevolence; encouraging the physical, mental and spiritual development of everyone. This collective outlook is considered the most important of all the ten principles, because it directs one’s life for the goal of others. Satya directly opposes the lies of convenience and hypocrisy of those in power.

However, situations do arise when the truth can hurt others. For example, if someone is hunted by a violent mob, benevolent truthfulness would probably favor hiding the victim and lying to the mob when they come hunting for that person. If someone tells you something in confidence, revealing their secret to the world can cause so much shame and guilt that it drives a person to suicide. In other words, instead of simple truth, this principle aspires to a higher calling based on benevolence.

If you always think for the welfare of others, you will develop great inner strength and mental clarity. This will enable you to inspire others to realize their hopes and dreams. In interpersonal relations, the truth should be conveyed with gentle and loving words.

We have a much more positive effect on people when we convey praise than censure. How do we feel about the people in our lives who give us praise and those who put us down? We want to do well to please those we feel are on our side, who praise and support us. We are much more ready to listen to their advice and suggestions, too.

Asteya: Not to take what rightfully belongs to others, and not to deprive others of what is their due.

In all societies, human beings have created systems of ownership and laws to avoid conflicts. Prout recognizes the need to question and to redesign unjust laws for the welfare of everyone. Yet when one breaks the law or steals for self-interest, the mind becomes crude―greed, lust, and habitual lying bring about one’s downfall.

This principle rejects corruption and cheating, which are especially destructive in economically undeveloped countries. From the very inception of the Ananda Marga and Prout movements in India, their members have maintained strict honesty in their personal lives. Sadly, this has often resulted in persecution. For example, when a member who was an employee of the police, customs, or tax department informed fellow officers that he or she would not accept bribe money, this moral stand was commonly viewed as a threat to the rest of the department. Often actions were then taken against the moralist—he or she was transferred, demoted, or fired.

The mental desire to steal must also be overcome. Otherwise greed, jealousy, and anger can poison us and cause constant frustration and disappointment.

Personal integrity and trustworthiness are essential qualities of an activist. One with ideal character is respected by all good people.

Brahmacarya: To respect and treat everyone and everything as an expression of the Supreme Consciousness.

Our welfare is mutually entwined. This is an attitude that is both spiritual and ecological, accepting that every being has profound physical, mental, and spiritual potential. We are each a part of the whole. We are each consciousness. Thus we have the right to object to someone’s actions, but we do not have the right to hate that person.

At the end of a yoga class in a prison in Great Britain, the instructor announced a homework assignment: “To everyone you see this week, think, ‘I love you’.” One prisoner thought it ridiculous, but decided to try it anyway, as no one would know since it was all in his head. It was hard for him not to laugh when he thought, ‘I love you,’ as he passed the meanest prisoners and toughest guards. Within hours people were asking him why he was grinning all the time. By the end of the week, both convicts and guards asked him what had happened, because he wasn’t getting into arguments or fights anymore. He always seemed cheerful and friendly. He wisely decided to continue the exercise. What worked for him can work for anyone.

Aparigraha: Not to accumulate wealth or indulge in comforts which are unnecessary for the preservation of life.

Aparigraha is an ecological principle of simple living with only as many material belongings as is necessary. If you have more than you need, donate the extra to charity. For example, every time you buy a new piece of clothing, donate two pieces of clothing in your closet to charity. Your closet will gradually become less cluttered, and you will probably notice that you start feeling lighter, too. Sometimes called “minimalism,” this means to reduce shopping, avoid debt, and give extra possessions away.

Aparigraha is based on the idea of Cosmic Inheritance, that we do not own the wealth of this planet. Instead we have inherited this world from the Cosmos. We are its caretakers, and we only have the right to use and share resources for the welfare of all. Unfortunately, in North America five percent of the world’s population is consuming 30 percent of the world’s resources and creating 30 percent of the world’s waste; if everyone in the world copied this lifestyle, we would need five planets! (Boyd 2011). Ecologists prescribe personal recycling, conserving home energy, reducing automobile use, and changing one’s food to a plant-based diet.

Each of these steps requires some amount of personal sacrifice, inconvenience, and time. Education is the best way to awaken awareness about the need to reduce our consumption to help restore ecological balance.

Following Aparigraha is not only good for the planet, it’s good for us, too. A wise man from Saudi Arabia in the seventh century, Ali Talib, said, “Detachment is not that you should own nothing, but that nothing should own you.” Sadly, many people seem to be prisoners of jobs they hate, of credit card debt they owe, and of lifestyles that are unhealthy for them and unhealthy for the planet.

The five principles of Niyama are about positive self-control, which, when practiced, lead to personal strength:

Shaoca: To maintain the cleanliness of one’s body and the environment, as well as mental purity.

The cleanliness of our body and our environment is critical to our physical and mental health. Likewise, our social environment—family and society—also has a positive or negative effect on us. Sadly, modern society bombards us with messages about violence and sex that have a very disturbing effect on our minds. Pornography pollutes our thoughts and corrupts our behavior and, therefore, it should be avoided.

This principle also refers to internal cleanliness. For example, eating too much leads to indigestion, mental dullness, obesity, and, in most cases, unhappiness. Self-restraint is important for mental purity and peace of mind.

Santosa: To maintain a state of mental contentment and peace.

The dominant modern lifestyle in developed countries is extremely hectic, stressful, and often superficial. Materialism and consumerism stimulate greed, causing even wealthy people to feel frustrated and unhappy. People often shop to escape boredom or loneliness. Investigative journalist Duncan Campbell observed, “Americans have more time-saving devices and less time than any other group of people in the world” (Lozoff 1999, 65).

It is profoundly important to stop and spend time with children, family, and friends. Despite all the problems we encounter each day, we should keep our patience and sense of humor. This is the attitude of an optimist, who always sees the bright side of everything. Yet this does not mean closing one’s eyes to the pains and sufferings of others. This principle instills a deep sense of gratitude for all the blessings of life, and instills hope in others.

Mental peace also comes from the deeper understanding that, spiritually, everything has a purpose. This idea is found in Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous prayer, that was popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

Tapah: To alleviate the suffering of the needy through personal service and sacrifice.

Giving one’s personal time to help those who are less fortunate greatly enriches one’s own life. Volunteering in this way is only considered tapah when it is done without the thought of reward or publicity. This type of true service develops mutual respect and instills humility.

Fear and ignorance prevent many people from serving others. By confronting our fears and reaching out to others in need, we overcome artificial barriers that divide people. While serving others, we learn to listen and identify with their problems. Service is essential for activists who want to change the world, because it creates a bond of friendship and empathy with the common people we want to help.

Albert Schweitzer, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said, “You must give some time to your fellow men. Even if it’s a little thing, do something for others—something for which you get no pay but the privilege of doing it.”

Svádhyáya: To read and endeavor to gain a clear understanding of spiritual books and scriptures, and listen to wise teachings.

To gain a clear understanding of wisdom, it is imperative that we use our rational, questioning minds. This practice gives the reader contact with great personalities and daily inspiration to begin and continue the personal path to self-realization.

While it is important to respect the spiritual traditions and paths of others, it is also important to oppose irrational and superstitious practices which cause harm. Blind obedience to religious dogmas results in fanaticism. An example of this is the outlook: “Only the followers of my religion are the chosen children of God. Only we will go to heaven when we die, while everyone else will be condemned to eternal hell.” This type of intolerant attitude led to the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the justification of slavery, and religious wars and persecution throughout history. The principle of svádhyáya asks us to question internally what we read and hear as we search for truth and wisdom.

Iishvara Pran’idhána: To accept the Cosmic Consciousness as one’s shelter and goal.

This principle offers a reply to the ancient mystical question, “Who am I?” We are more than our physical body, more than our mind; we are pure consciousness, a drop in the infinite ocean of the Cosmic Mind.

This is also an attitude of surrender to a higher purpose. The famous Prayer of Saint Francis, which begins, “O Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace,” is an example of this spiritual tenet.

Prout’s Vision Discussion Questions:

What moral dilemmas does your country face today?

What moral dilemmas do you and your friends face today?

Do you know anyone who has the habit of lying? What are they like?

“Most moral values have reflected the interests of the rich and powerful.” Do you agree with this statement? Give an example to support your view.

There is a cynical saying, “Everyone has their price,” which means that a person who is able to resist a small temptation of money might give in if the amount is big enough. Have you ever seen an example of this?

Do you feel the ten universal ethical principles of Yama and Niyama could be a relevant guide to your actions today? Why or why not?

Have you ever met someone who claimed to be moral, but was not? How did their actions differ from their words?

Have you ever seen a government leader who claimed to be moral, but was not? How did their actions differ from their words?

“Accumulating as much money as you can is immoral.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

“Pornography pollutes the mind.” Do you agree? Why or why not?

Have you ever been to jail, or do you know anyone who has? If so, what was their experience?

“Since 1971, the United States has spent more than $1 trillion on its ‘War on Drugs,’ and yet drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever” (Jarecki 2012). What is your opinion about illegal drugs?

Activist Tools: One-on-Ones

All community organizations are made up of relationships between individuals, and this is also true of activist groups. One of the key ways organizers try to improve the people and associations they invite into their alliances is through the process of one-on-ones.

A one-on one interview is both a “public” and “personal” interview with another individual.

The interview is personal in the sense that it often gets into quite intimate stories about someone’s life. Of course, it is always up to the person being interviewed as to what they are willing to share. But the fact is that people are rarely asked to share their stories, and many are quite willing to do so.

The interview is public in that your goal is not to create an intimate friendship (although this may also be an eventual result). Instead, your aim is quite pragmatic. You are trying to link this person to a larger group, giving them and the organization more power to make the kinds of changes they would very much like to see in society. You want a public, not a private relationship with this person.

Partly in order to help the people you interview to understand the public, rather than private, nature of these interviews, that you are not approaching them to become their friend, one-on-ones are generally set up in a relatively formal manner. Use a personal connection (name drop). Ask to meet in a place that’s comfortable for the person (their office/home or nearby public space) for about half an hour at a particular time so that you can talk with them, get to know them, and help them understand your organization. From the beginning the person knows that you are approaching them in the role of a leader or organizer.

One-on-one interviews have four key goals:

To develop a relationship with an individual that you can draw upon later.
To discover a person’s passion, which will help you hook this person into particular issues they may be interested in working on.
To ask this person to do something specific for your organization. Remember: people get involved because somebody asked them. So ask!
You want to evaluate whether this person is worthy of inviting into your organization. Is this someone who seems reliable? Is this someone who can disagree and engage in meetings without being disruptive? Are they passionate about anything enough to keep them engaged over the long-term? Remember that public relationships are, ideally, driven by self-interest, the need for respect, and a willingness to hold others accountable and to be held accountable oneself. A person may be perfectly useful as a participant to call into a mass action, but not someone you want as a leader.

Be careful about making such decisions too quickly, however. It is really impossible to know for certain how someone will act in an organization unless one has worked with this person. Further, traits like race and gender can bias our perspectives without us even knowing this. Society tends to disparage the leadership activities of people who work more in the background instead of out front like a familiar patriarchal leader. Sometimes the people who look great turn out to be terrible, and the people who look terrible turn out to be great (although often in ways you may not have predicted before).

Prout is so vast that many people have a hard time explaining it in simple terms. This is crucial when talking to new people. Here is one approach:

“Prout stands for the Progressive Utilization Theory, an alternative to both global capitalism and communism. It is based on the economic self-reliance of each region, cooperatives, environmental protection, and universal spiritual values. It was founded by Indian philosopher Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar, who died in 1990. We are part of a global movement to raise consciousness about the need to share the resources of Planet Earth for the welfare of everyone.”

This explanation takes about 35 seconds to say. Choose your own words, but you need to memorize your simple message of Prout and practice telling it to many people until it feels natural to you.

Why are Relationships So Important?

Why do you need to get to know someone, and why is it important for you to develop a personal (if public) relationship with them? There are a number of reasons.

First, one of the key mottos of organizing is: “People don’t usually come to meetings because they see a flyer. People come to meetings because someone invited them.” This is a powerful truth of human motivation. It’s much easier to go to a new place with new people if there is someone there that you know. Being invited also makes a person feel more important; it seems like it actually matters if they show up or not. If someone calls you up and invites you and you say “yes,” then you are accountable, whether you follow through or not.

Second, people feel a part of organizations and actions not only because they care about an issue, but also because they feel connected to the individuals in that organization. In fact, within an organizing group, leaders will often do one-on-ones among themselves to strengthen their ties and help them understand the inner motivations of the people around the table. The more relationships you have with people in an organization, the more you will feel a part of it, and, therefore, actually responsible for its success or failure.

Third, your relationship with someone allows you to engage with them around their interests or passions.

Fourth, once you do a lot of one-on-ones, the group you are a part of starts seeming less like an abstract collective, and more like what it is, a collection of unique individuals drawn together for a range of diverse reasons and convictions. You start to understand challenges and internal tensions in your organization in more complex terms. Someone once said: It’s not the idea, it’s the people.

No matter how great Prout is, how right you are, you won’t get anywhere if you can’t get other people together around it.

Finally, doing one-on-ones helps you understand what your members care about. It is by doing one-on-ones that you can figure out what issues will really draw people together in collective action. The organizer’s job is to help people develop power as an organization about multiple issues.

Prout includes everything: the environment, ethics, economic justice, sustainable agriculture, culture, education, political action, developing leaders, cooperatives, social justice, the judicial system, and much more. Choosing an issue is a complex balancing act. No issue is perfect. The ecological slogan, “Think globally and act locally,” is good to remember, because any positive local action with a universal outlook will contribute to a better world.

Too much study can kill a group as much as too little. Sitting around forever and chatting and getting everyone’s unique perspective on everything can lead an organization to fall apart because it never does anything.

The one-on-one process provides an opportunity for people to turn their personal pain into public action. This directed conversation helps you find out who they are and how they might fit into your organization.

Anyone who shows up reliably over time and supports the organization is really a leader. A very quiet person who doesn’t talk much at meetings may bring lots of people with her, and a very loud person who talks a lot may not bring anyone. And people who will show up early and make sure a meeting is set up correctly can be as crucial to organizations as are those who make speeches.

The One-on-One Interview

Try to make a personal connection. Find out how long they’ve been in the community, what they’re personally concerned about, and what they’d like to see change. You want to use open-ended questions that do not have single answers. Your job is to elicit key stories of the other person’s life.

Share your personal story, too (why you care about this community, how you’re involved, etc.).

Ask if there are other people you should talk to.

Make sure to tell them you’d like to call them again to continue the conversation (and give them the opportunity to say “yes”).

Do not take notes during a one-on-one. Instead, take notes later, after you are done.

An easy way to shift people in an interview, or to get people talking when they seem not to have much to say, is to remember what they have said before. In other words, if they mention their experience in high school, but then move on to talking about their kitchen renovation, you might say, “You mentioned high school earlier. Can you tell me more about your experience there?” If they stop talking, this also can be a useful way to get things started again. You can do this kind of redirection back to things they said earlier quite often and even quite abruptly. Because this redirection is about what they already said, they won’t see it as an interruption, or as an indication you don’t care about what they are saying. Keeping track of these topics that people have raised allows you to control the interview and at the same time keep the interview in areas that the person wants to talk about.

Afterwards, follow-up with a thank you note or call. Arrange another meeting time if that’s what you agreed to do, or find them at a community event.

One-on-One Evaluation: What You Want to Write Down Afterward

Give the name of the person you interviewed.
Note the different issues and topics you covered in your discussion. Don’t post details that seem too personal unless the person has given you permission. State the general topics you addressed. If the person told you any stories, list what the stories were about, in general.
List what the person’s key passions are. For each passion, explain why you think this is their passion. People won’t say, “this is my passion,” and even if they do, you may discover other passions in the stories they tell. This is something you need to uncover from your own interpretations of what they say.
Did you develop a relationship with this person? Why or why not? Would you feel comfortable calling this person back to ask them to participate in something?
What seemed effective about your interview?
What do you wish had gone better?
Finally, did you feel like you developed a relationship with this person? What kind?

Activist Tools Exercise: One-on-Ones

Do a 20-minute interview with a participant you don’t know very well. Usually one-on-ones go for about 45 minutes, so this is a shortened version. But you’d be amazed about how much information you can glean from 20 minutes.
Allow your partner to then do a 20-minute interview with you. Normally you wouldn’t just switch roles like this; you’d give the person a chance to do a one-on-one with you at a different time if they wanted.
Talk a little about how you both thought the interviews went, and give each other any advice you might have.

Closure:

The facilitator should remind everyone about further viewings, readings, and activities – Do as many as you can. Ask everyone to read the next module in the manual before the next meeting. Confirm the date, time, and place of the next meeting. Show the following roles for the next module and ask people to volunteer to lead a part.

MODULE 6: A HEALTHY ECONOMY
Facilitator: _______
Timekeeper: _______
Excitement Sharing: _______ (10 min.) 0:00
The Social Reality: Debt – review and lead discussion question: _______ (15 min.) 0:10
Prout’s Vision: Economics of a Three-Tiered Economy – review and lead discussion questions: _______ (30 min.) 0:25
Activist Tools: Winning Words, Frames and Metaphors, The Political Climate – review: _______ (10 min.) 0:55
Activist Tools: How Conservatives Manipulate Public Opinion, Choose Winning Words – review: _______ (10 min.) 1:05
Activist Tool Exercise: Winning Words Debate: _______ (30 min.) 1:15
Closure, Feedback, Role Assignments for Next Week: _______ (15 min.) 1:45

Ask participants to write anonymous feedback about the session before they leave. They can use the Feedback Form at the end of Module 1, or write whatever they like.

Activities—Do as many as you can:

What are the total figures for violent crimes in your country? How are these numbers changing over time?

What are the reported rates of domestic violence and rapes? What are the estimated actual rates of domestic violence and rapes?

Look up how your country ranks and scores on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Would you agree with that?

Ask whether bullying is perceived as a problem in the schools of your community. If it is, look up which organizations or campaigns are actively fighting it.

Measure your “Ecological Footprint”: How many planets do we need if everybody lived like you?

Take a poll among friends and family to ask, “Who are the most ethical voices in our community and country?” Try to meet those people and listen to what they are saying.

Do one-on-one interviews with people you don’t know well.

FOLLOW-UP

Further viewings:

Leitner, Julia. 2018. “Mastering One on One Conversations.” The Arena. June 20, 2018. 3 minutes.

Pope Francis. 2017. “Why the Only Future Worth Building Includes Everyone.” TED, April 2017. 17 minutes.

Reisel, Daniel. 2013. “The Neuroscience of Restorative Justice.” TED. February 2013. 12 minutes.

Zak, Paul. 2011. “Trust, Morality — and Oxytocin?” TEDGlobal, July 2011. 15 minutes.

References:

Boyd, Robynne. 2011. “One Footprint at a Time.” Scientific American, July 14, 2011.

Galeano, Eduardo. 2001. Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World. Montevideo: Picador.

Jarecki, Eugene, dir. 2012. “The House I Live In” documentary film about the War on Drugs in the United States.

Lozoff, Bo. 1999. Deep and Simple. Durham, NC: Human Kindness Foundation.

Sarkar, P.R. 1960. “Social Defects in Gandhism.”

— 1977. A Guide to Human Conduct. Calcutta: Ananda Marga Publications.

Continue to Module 6.