“By polycrisis response, do we mean preventing triggers, relieving stresses, or alleviating resultant harm? Do we mean blocking the vectors by which crises can travel within and across systems? Another possibility is: removing obstacles to effective intervention.”
When it comes to polycrisis, where are the most useful places to intervene…?
In reflecting on what it means to respond to the polycrisis, the most pressing question for me is - who is the responder? Or in the plural, who are the responders? People, generally. Which leads to … what are people like? And of all people, which are responding to a “polycrisis” as compared to responding to some other stimulus or situation? (Essentially, this question of who is responding to what is mapped in the chart in the linked article in the OP).
Going with a finger in the wind (as opposed to any formal survey data), my best guess is precious few are guided in their life’s decisions by responding to the “polycrisis”. Life goals tend to come with other announced targets, for example: happiness, God’s will, long life, supporting the next generation, or some other positive good. Although many might intuit or reason their way to a notion of many complex, interlocking stresses and challenges facing the world, few are those who conceptualize all that as a “polycrisis” and fewer still those who organize any sort of formal response to a polycrisis.
Given this background analysis, even if one were committed to mobilizing a polycrisis response, I’m not sure defining and discussing the polycrisis is going to be effective on a large scale. My own preferred model is to start with the person, and whatever any given person’s felt concerns are. Then support action learning loops in which people learn by doing and expand conceptual horizons in the process of attempting initiatives and understanding the barriers and containers that deflect small scale solutions to particular problems. Eventually, something like poly-systemic view should emerge.
The old formula “think globally, act locally” seems pertinent. For example, this morning, I’m somewhat at a loss about how I can personally deescalate the Israel-Iran conflict, roll back Trump’s tariffs, restore dignity to US immigration policy, regenerate all global bioregions, transition to clean energy, and redistribute national income more equitably, among other things. Worthy goals all - but not so easy to align with personal action plans. Likewise, I’m not sure calling it all a polycrisis or a metacrisis makes it any less overwhelming or any more tractable.
Being in the rather unusual position of holding multiple cross-disciplinary graduate degrees, I do feel some personal responsibility for articulating coherent theoretical views of the global situation and for guiding people toward what I believe are generative and regenerative activities meaningful to them. Those theories and practices are for other posts on other days. But as a general goal, my preferred target would be something like “a long term future for humanity on earth”. Whatever that trajectory turns out to be, I imagine plenty of short- to medium-term turbulence. Call that rough weather a polycrisis if you wish. My main concerns, though, are how to navigate it, one lifeboat at a time.
Much to agree with in @RobertBunge 's reply here. I particularly agree with what I see as an implication: that different people are called to respond in different ways. So there isn’t – indeed couldn’t be – any one place that is “most useful” in general. What I see as most useful is that every one who is moved acts in the ways that most align both with what they are good at, and what is needed. A variant on ikigai, if you like.
What I’d like to add is the collective dimension — much as I did in my posts on Collective Ikigai a couple of years ago. None of us have perfect foresight on what the most effective action we could take, even within our own varied powers. But getting together in collective wisdom with the right other people is at least going to improve the chances that our actions will have positive effect — that they will be useful responses to the metacrisis.
And on the topic of terminology, I would say that whatever terms bring people to the most useful response are the right ones for them. There is no “correct” or “incorrect” terminology. The point of terms like “metacrisis” is to help us to grasp the complexity of the challenge, and to be able to align ourselves better. If a different term helps us to align better, all well and good!
Agreed. Given the western modern bias toward individualism, it will not be unusual for people to start an Ikigai journey answering all questions in the first person singular. However, it may soon occur that “what the world needs” is more community or more collaboration. Part of the process of forging such bonds might be a collective Ikigai exercise as well. Tweaking the four main questions might suggest avenues for group discussion such as:
These are great questions, @RobertBunge
Just in case you or anyone is further interested, I do take this a lot further in my two pieces: