Reimagining the economy with Sisterhood principles
Jul 13 ·
This is the third of three blogs that Abby and I have written to record the collective thoughts of The Point People about a new type of economy we see emerging, which we’re calling sisterhood economics, inspired by Jennifer Armbrust’s The Sisterhood. In the first blog, Abby talks about why we think this is important. In the second, we share the examples of what we think these businesses look like. And this piece reflects the thought activity we did to reimagine what the economy would look like if sisterhood values were the norm.
Inspired by Dan Lockton’s New Metaphors, we spent some time first exploring the current metaphors that frame how we see (in the West) the economy: the words and phrases we use, the rituals, the values. Sometimes these are so ingrained in our language, we are not conscious of them. Lakoff and Johnson’s seminal Metaphors we Live By (1980) revealed how embedded these are in everyday language and govern how we see the world (and therefore our capacity to reimagine it). For example the metaphor ‘argument is war’ positions an argument as a tense act between two opponents (“his criticisms were on target”, “he shot down my argument”), rather than a joint dialogue exploring an issue.
Then we took one of the new Feminist Business principles, and did the same: unpacking it and understanding the words, patterns and structures associated with it. The final step was to take one of the old rituals or artefacts (e.g. the rich list, a pay slip, a performance review) and apply the new principle to it.
Here is where we got to…
Slide explaining our first exercise
Old metaphors…
Unpacking metaphors we currently use to expose how we frame our thinking
Upwards growth. Words like ‘build back better’ and ‘recovery’ suppose that the economy has weakened or crumbled and needs to grow. And the idea that we have to bring back what was before rather than something new. Some of the words and metaphors we use around ‘building’ that are ‘concrete’ and immovable, and others like ‘green shoots of recovery’ that have more organic connotations.
Two-way, hierarchical, binary power relationships. There are many words and phrases which denote exchange or transaction, but are two-way and with no sense of interdependence. ‘Profit and loss’, ‘winners and losers’, ‘queen bee versus worker bee’. These are binary camps you can’t fall between.
Within a performance review, someone is assessing someone else rather than it being a collective reflection. Employment means that someone is in the employ of someone else. The payslip on the one hand provides stability and legitimacy (and acts as a certificate). But it also is an arbitrary value someone else places on you (and bears no relationship to the actual value you have created that month), and places the receiver in a passive position of power (as opposed to issuing an invoice).
Dehumanised descriptions of resources (so that we can exploit them). ‘Human resources’ — or even the acronym ‘HR’, are actually living, breathing individuals with personalities, and the ‘environment’ which literally means surroundings, is also a living, breathing planet with an abundance of animals and plants living together with us.
Aggressive behaviours. The ‘rich list’ is the epitome of home economicus. It’s about ranking, striving, dominating and winning, and in a very one-dimensional way all about money. The idea of the list is a hierarchical rank with everyone better or worse than someone else. There are scarce resources at the top, so people need to compete. Words like ‘undercut’, ‘dog eat dog’, ‘sales pitch’, ‘be the best’, ‘rich list’.
Slide explaining our second exercise
New metaphors
Exploring new metaphors to help reframe what economy could be through different lenses
Reciprocity and flow. Which still allows exchange and market, but something that feels a fairer balance of power. We’re not just transacting with businesses in a commercial sense, but were able to integrate with business missions in other ways? Or not just transacting with nature but integrating with it.
Osmosis, porous, weave/woven, interdependence. We feel that our time is more engaged across different work — or purpose — boundaries (and not just paid work or purpose) rather than tied to a single 9–5 job.
Part of nature. Rather than us being simply connected to it, or it being an ‘externality’. Rather to talk about the planet as ‘the body’, and consider that how you treat your body will have an impact on the world. In Maori language ‘I am the land and the land is me’ is one metaphor by which they start and frame their conversations.
Balance and optimisation. We have to live within the limit of what we can regenerate. We don’t just want profit or loss, but something in between. Rather than a focus on maximisation, we should move to optimisation: just enough to satisfy needs rather than being a bit ‘grabby’.
New artefacts and rituals
Applying new framings to existing artefacts and rituals to make tangible what we mean and translate it into concepts people can understand
Payslip. Wouldn’t just be a certificate or proof of how much you’ve been paid in a transactional way, but could be a moment of giving thanks and acknowledging value. If work is around being in a relationship with other people to create some value, you are bonded to them through that creation, and it could be celebrated as a monthly moment of collective achievement.
Balanced budget. Delicate and skilled dance between the minimum resources a business needs for the wellbeing of the world, and what it gives back.
Paying a bill. Not just paying money in return for a commercial product/service/offer, but other ways that you could transact (for example giving your time, skills, connections, something from your garden etc).
The rich list. Rather than reading ‘rich’ as monetary, we could see it as the ample or bounteous stories that come through the act of doing (of providing something that gives people joy, or helps them achieve something) rather than the result of profit. And these could be surfaced through storytelling (where the listener also attributes the value they see), rather than a one-dimensional measure of value.
To end, Abby read an extract from Emergent Strategy by Adrienne Maree Brown
“If the goal was to increase the love rather than winning or dominating a constant opponent, I think we could imagine liberation from constant oppression. We would suddenly be seeing everything we do, everyone we meet, not through the tactical eyes of war, but eyes of love. We would see there is no such thing as a blank canvas, an empty land or a new idea, but everywhere there is complex, ancient, fertile ground full of potential. We would organise with the perspective that there is wisdom and experience and amazing story in the communities we love and instead of starting with new idea or organisation all the time, we would want to listen, support, collaborate and merge and grow through fusion not competition. We would understand that the strength of our movement is the strength of our relationships which could only be measured by their depths. Scaling up would mean going deeper, being more vulnerable, and being more empathetic.”