[bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I guess I believe that everyone appointed to a task, to a committee, 
should do their best to make sure all views from CS are represented to 
the best of their ability and understanding.  And of course they will be 
able to argue from their personal perspective as well and be able to 
better represent that perspective when that is the appropriate thing. 
My view of the successful CS representative is someone who can express 
both their own views and the views of others, and while giving 
transparent verbal emphasis to their own view I also expect then to be 
able to make sure that CS views that aren't represented already are 
acknowledged, understood and taken into account.

But no, I do not beleive any representative can be singular in their 
representation and only repesent the view they came in with.  I beleive 
that on becoming the chosen one of a group, the group becomes the entity 
they are accountable to and its diversity views its responsibility.

But yes, the big-tent has to allow for all views to be discussed.

avri

On 23-Dec-13 10:38, Guru गुरु wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> On 12/23/2013 07:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution
>> us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to
>> stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil Society viewpoint.  Many
>> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous
>> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'.
>>
>> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also
>> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out
>> the views of others who also minority viewpoints.  Even people with
>> minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent
>> the diversity of CS view adequately
>
> If we agree that there are under represented groups, then CS needs to
> help them participate. Can we agree on this as an important principle
> for CS? It seems obvious then, that as we include more views, we will
> have more and more diverse set of views.
>
> Can we then burden these groups with the need to 'represent diversity of
> CS views adequately'?  Is it not fair for them to represent their views
> (since these are  under represented). Would this burden not end up in
> shutting these voices out? One may feel that all groups need to be open
> to others views, but not insist that each group should adequately
> represent diversity of views.
>
> More importantly, if we agree that many views are indeed under
> represented, the so called current 'big tent views' may themselves be
> very narrow in their representativeness. Simply by excluding a large set
> of voices, we see harmony which is perhaps a mirage. Better we get out
> of this mirage and face reality.
>
>> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with
>> their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes.
>
> Avri,
> this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of
> a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be
> characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and
> hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in
> enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened
> to.  Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only
> ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable
> views' = hegemony)
>
> I would like you to consider another real life analogy.
> In India for decades post independence, only around 30% of children
> (from relatively affluent families) went to public schools. In last two
> decades, thanks to very very strong public/Government/Community efforts,
> enrolment has increased to 98%. However now children from marginalised
> groups (previously excluded) attend and teachers feel that while the
> earlier classroom situation was very conducive and harmonious, now with
> the inclusion of these groups of children, the classroom environment has
> become vitiated and ugly.
>
> The fault is not of these children from marginalised groups or their
> 'minority views', rather the teachers biased views on 'harmony' is the
> problem. Inclusion is far more valuable a principle than so called
> 'harmony' which may only mask mutual back scratching amongst a small
> homogeneous group.
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp
>>>
>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>>>
>>>
>