Mar 232004
 

So Kosovo’s back in the news. 31 people dead. The return of tribal bloodletting and ethnic cleansing. Only this time it appears to be the Serbs that have been getting the worst of it.

Seemingly triggered by the stupidity of Serb youths hounding (literally, with a dog!) a couple of young Albanian children to their deaths in a river, what increasingly looks to be a well-coordinated campaign by Albanians to drive Serbs out of their homes suddenly materialised from nowhere. And now the dream of an Albanian Muslim Kosovo, independent of Serbia, is equally suddenly back openly at the top of certain extremist groups’ agendas.

The speed with which the situation in Kosovo deteriorated clearly caught the NATO troops and the United Nations mandated administration off guard. As I write, several thousand addtional NATO troops have entered Kosovo and a relative calm seems to be returning to the Serbian province.

Yet the sheer ferocity of this sudden outbreak of ethnic violence raises questions about the viability of the UN strategy for it not only exposed the fragility of the NATO-imposed peace but also its shallowness.

On the face of it things had been going reasonably well in Kosovo for the UN. There had been no signifcant ethnic violence since NATO entered the province in 1999. Kosovo’s Albanian-dominated devolved government and the Serbian government in Belgrade had been making progress in discussions on issues such as energy. Kosovo’s top Serb and Albanian politicians had reached agreement on how the ethnically-divided city of Mitrovica should be run. Gracious, Serbs and Albanians had even begun talking to each other in the streets again!

Now, nobody other than the extremists seems to know what to do next. On Radio 4′s ‘Today’ programme late last week, I heard one fellow from the UN say the multi-ethnicity of pre-1991 Kosovo had to be restored. (1991 saw the start of the breakup of Yugoslavia with the secession of Slovenia.) Did this guy think Kosovo had once been some model of ethnic cohabitation? Didn’t he know that the visit of Slobodan Milosevic to Kosovo in April 1987 was one of his key stepping stones to power? When Milosevic heard the complaints of the downtrodden minority Serbs and made a rousing speech promising action against their Albanian ‘oppressors’, it was a call to Serb nationalism.

Two tribes go to war!
Kosovo had been a running sore on the body of the Yugoslav Federation for years. There were many reasons for this; but a key factor was quite simply that the Albanian Kosovars were not Slavs. ‘Yugoslavia’ was a bold attempt in the aftermath of the First World War to create an overarching identity for the Slavic states and thus bring stability to the Balkans.

The Balkan tribes cohabiting peacefully under an umbrella identity was a fragile condition, as demonstrated only too horrifically by the Croats’ murderous persecution (under German auspices) of the Serbs during the Second World War. To knit Yugoslavia together again after that needed something way beyond tribalism – and that ‘something’ came in the form of the Communist state and its overlord, Marshall Tito.

In Spiral Dynamics terms, tribalism is a manifestation of the PURPLE vMEME. Since PURPLE seeks safety in belonging, by default it delineates between those who are of-our-tribe and those who are not-of-our-tribe. However, it is possible to build super-tribal identities.

For example, in England Liverpool and Manchester might be rival centres of trade, industry and power – and fans from the two cities’ football teams might clash violently. However, they are all Lancashire people and the historical prejudice against Yorkshire, which still surfaces from time to time, is something many from both cities will subscribe to. Lancashire and Yorkshire people both tend to see themselves as ‘Northerners’ and will all too often disparage ‘Southerners’. Englishmen from across the country will – and have in the past! – united against the Scots. Both Scots and English will fight together under the umbrella of ‘Britons’ – as they have done in the 300 years since the Act of Union.

The taller the hierarchy of tribal identities, the more BLUE structure it needs to hold it together and to suppress tribal rivalries lower down the hierarchy.

In the Communist state Tito established a BLUE system which did exactly that while promoting the concept of Yugoslavia – ‘All the Slavs’. It also helped that Tito had high RED which made him both charasmatic and ruthlessly controlling.

Thus, Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrans could all be ‘Slavs’ equally in Tito’s land. The Albanian Kosovars, of course, weren’t Slavs but claimed descent from the Illyrians, supposedly the original settlers of the Kosovan lands. It is perhaps a credit to Tito’s genius that he more or less managed the ethnic tension in Kosovo – moving from suppression of the Albanians to partial liberalisation – but Kosovo remained a problem throughout his time as leader of Yugoslavia.

After Tito’s death in 1980 and coinciding with the slow but sure collapse of Communism across Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia equally slowly but surely began to unravel until the early 1990s saw Slav slaughtering Slav in the Serb-Croat wars. With the BLUE structure of Communism gone and RED demagogic leaders like Milosevic and Croatia’s Franjo Tudjman unleashing the PURPLE-BLUE beasts of nationalism, the identity of ‘Slav’ was replaced by the lower tribal identities – Croat, Serb, Bosnian, etc – and in PURPLE it’s okay to kill those who are not-of-our-tribe if they are seen to threaten our tribe.

Of course, the rigid BLUE Procedures of organised religion can add mightily to tribal tensions. Thus, Othodox Serb Christians can kill Catholic Croatian Christians (and vice versa) for not worshipping in the same way and following the same rituals. There are relatively few differences between Catholic and Orthodox Christians in the grand scheme of things. Create a super identity of ‘Christians’ – subscribed to by both Catholic and Orthodox – and BLUE will legitimise the wholesale slaughter of Muslims who don’t just not worship correctly but actually worship the ‘wrong’ manifestation of God and a ‘false prophet’. (Equally BLUE Islam will legitimise the slaughter of Christians – just ask al-Qaeda!)

It’s notable that, after all the turbulence of the 1990s, the two remaining real hotspots in the Balkans are Bosnia and Kosovo. In both instances PURPLE tribalism and BLUE religious hatreds are at the centre of the divides. In both instances a BLUE structure of order is imposed by a Western military force.

GREEN thinking predominating in much of Western thought on resolving the Balkan conflicts talks of restoring multi-ethnic harmony as though the people there will be naturally tolerant and respectful of their neighbours’ different tribal origins and religious beliefs. Its assumption that all should think similarly is flawed…fatally flawed! What is not needed, when dealing with PURPLE tribalism and BLUE dogma, is GREEN liberalism. What is needed is the kind of BLUE structure, capable of repression, that Tito built. For sure, GREEN informing that BLUE structure so that all can function to some degree under it is helpful; but control, not freedom, needs to be the main priority.

However, GREEN wouldn’t tolerate the human rights abuses that tend to go with such regimes and the capitalist thinking of the ORANGE vMEME in the West couldn’t stomach actually facilitating state control on that level. So a Tito-type solution is unlikely to come from the West.

Writing in this weekend’s ‘Observer’, Tim Judah, author of ‘Kosovo: War & Revenge’, recognises the strength of the ethnic divide and, somewhat tentatively, proposes partition as perhaps the only way out. That, as he ruefully acknowledges, more or less legitimises the ethnic cleansing necessary to create partitionable geography.

Partition seems to be working after a fashion in Cyprus. It’s highly debatable if it can be said to have worked in Ireland.

Lacking a Super Identity
Mulling over the explosion of violence in Kosovo, tangentally I began to think of Northern Ireland. It suddenly came home to me just how fragile that peace is.  

As with the Muslim Albanians and the Christian Serbs in Kosovo, there is no Super Identity the Republican Catholics and the Unionist Protestants can buy into. The Republicans see themselves as Irish; the Unionists see themselves as British. On the religious front, Rome and Canterbury might be carrying on periodic flirtations but there are still huge barriers (not least the ordination of women and then the whole issue of homosexuality) to be overcome before there can be any meaningful reconciliation. In any case the Church of England is virtually papist to the likes of Ian Paiseley – and there are a lot like him in the more Protestant Protestant churches in Northern Ireland.

Like Kosovo, quiet for over four years, the PURPLE tribalism and the BLUE divides of national allegiance and religious bigotry are there just below the surface in Northern Ireland.

There are some key differences, though between, Ireland and Kosovo. For one thing, after 25 years of ‘The Troubles’ failing to achieve anything, a lot of people in the province were worn out with it all. For all their efforts, the terrorists (or, freedom fighters, according to preference) couldn’t beat either the BLUE machine of the British Army or the BLUE resolve of the British political establishement.

But perhaps more importantly, a lot of people in the South lost interest.

Following the 1922 partition, Eire enshrined (BLUE) in its constitution its (PURPLE) claim to the 6 counties it had failed to recover from the British. PURPLE’s affiliation to the physical geography cannot be understated – though it is frequently ignored! Thus, as so often has been said, it became the duty of every Irishman to get the 6 counties back – and thus the ambivalence of many Irish governments towards IRA-type operations in the North.

However, the remarkable transformation of the Irish economy in the mid-1990s (helped by bucketfuls of European Union money) changed the perspectives of a lot of people. Whether the success of the economy led to the emergence of the ORANGE vMEME at a major cultural level or whether it was ORANGE which made such a success from the EU handouts is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. What we do know is that, for many people in the South, bettering themselves became more important than championing historical causes. When the Good Friday Agreement was voted on in 1998 – with its requirement that Eire drop its constitutional claim to the 6 counties – it breezed through in the South. In the economically-depressed North, where BLUE polarisation dominated, the Agreement barely got through.

A number of the key decision-makers in both governments and both communities recognise that economic prosperity is one of the keys to Northern Ireland not slipping back into violence. If ORANGE, in its wealth-making mode, can undermine the polarisation of BLUE but use BLUE order to suppress those, for whom BLUE dogma and PURPLE tribalism is what it’s about, then Northern Ireland might have a good chance.

Moving back to Kosovo, even though around 90% of the population are Albanian, the Serbian national psyche has a deep emotional root in the province – ‘Old Serbia’ as it is known to Serbs, being the heart of mediaeval Serbia – a mediaeval Serbia which was broken in defence of Western Christianity at the Battle of Kosovo Polje, trying to hold back the Muslim hordes from the Ottoman Empire of the Turks.

ORANGE-ification
Letting go of Kosovo is for the Serbs the equivalent of Eire abandoning the 6 counties. However, for the Serbian economy, still recovering from wars and sanctions but tempted by the carrot of EU membership, an Eire-type ORANGE-ification is not beyond the realms of possiblilty.

It is exactly this kind of strategy for the Palestinians that Spiral Dynamics co-developers Don Beck & Chris Cowan discussed with the US State Department during Bill Clinton’s first term. Using Eire as the blueprint, the idea was to pump money into the Palestinian economy in the hope of stimulating a cultural emergence of ORANGE. The hope was that Palestinians would become more interested in bettering themselves than killing Israelis – and that would then remove the Israeli justification for continued occupation of the Palestinian areas. (For various reasons the talks with the State Department stalled but Beck has since discussed variations on that theme with foreign policy interest groups at the European Parliament and the European Commission.)

Perhaps some kind of partition of Kosovo along the lines suggested by Tim Judah will provide a partial and at least temporary solution. But, as the Irish Catholics proved, partition borders don’t tend to hold people back for very long when there are few jobs one side of the border and a shortage of labour on the other. And then the pre-partition probems are re-engaged.

As most MeshWORKERS know, there are rarely final fixed solutions when managing vMEMES. A constant vigilance for changing scenarios and the capability to respond to those changes are necessary to anticipate and resolve problems.

In Kosovo – just as in Ireland – the PURPLE tribalism will never go away but it can be superceded by a ‘greater PURPLE’ identity – eg: ‘Yugoslavia’ – and held in check by powerful and efficient BLUE. The propagation of GREEN humanism to undermine some of the BLUE religious dogma will also help. In the right conditions, contained tribalism can even be rendered irrelevant by the emergence of ORANGE at a cultural level.

The key then to managing conflict is understanding and manipulating vMEMES. PURPLE tribalism can be managed and controlled but its power to re-emerge as a powerful and potentially destructive force should never be underestimated.

Mar 132004
 

For an hour or so on the morning of Thursday 11 March it was one of the lead stories on the news broadcasts. Then, understandably, the unfolding horror of the Madrid train explosions wiped it off the news as surely as the bombers wiped out some 200 commuters.

Yet the story of Stephen Lewis stayed with me. A 37-year-old family man, with a reasonable job and a salary of £22,000 (not unreasonable; around the national average), had killed himself in July 2003 after running up over £65,000 in credit card debt. With his window, Susan, still being harrassed by the credit card companies seeking to recover their money, she and MP John Mann were working the broadcast studios and newspaper offices that fateful morning of 11 March to draw attention to the human cost of Britain’s credit card boom.

Stephen Lewis, it appears, in his desperation, had been running up debts on some of his credit cards to effect demanded minimum payments on others. As a short-term strategy, that was sustainable as long as Lewis could support it by taking on new credit cards. At the time of his death he had a staggering 19 cards! Yet obviously the overall debt would have kept on mounting. Inevitably, the default notices, debt recovery section phone calls and solicitors letters mounted too, finally proving too much for Lewis.

The story had some disturbing parallels with that of Mario Opalka which had emerged earlier in the week.

Opalka, a 44-year old town planner, had hung himself in January after running up £53,000 on internet casinos. He had been subsidising his gambling through credit cards. Again he had 19 of them, with credit limits upto £6,000 each.

Commenting on the Lewis case, Malcolm Hurlston of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, told The Guardian: “In the past week we have counselled one client with 39 cards and another with 37, so although 19 may be extreme, it is by no means exceptional.” Britain’s credit card companies have been selling their products quite aggressively for some time now. For example, television adverts extol the virtues of certain cards over their rivals, easy-to-complete applications for cards drop through letter boxes on an almost-daily basis and 2-3 cards salespeople from different companies are there to accost travellers on most railway and motorway service station concourses during the daytime.

The availability of ‘easy money’ – high street banks and specialist lending banks such as HFC and The Associates are as much a source as the credit card companies – has been good for the economy, they say, fuelling consumer spending. Yet Britain’s average household debt is the highest in the European Union and increasingly such a cause for concern that the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee is now taking it into consideration in its monthly deliberations on the setting of base interest rates.

So what is going on?

A Psychological Perspective…?
In Spiral Dynamics terms, the ORANGE
vMEME is driving the credit card boom. ORANGE quite simply sees that lending money in attractive ‘packages’ (cleverly mixing rates of interest with deferred payment schedules, ‘freebie’ gifts, discount schemes, easy routes to yet more money, etc) will generate greater amounts of money for itself.

Its narrow focus on achieving its own goals and the Big Picture and Move-Towards meta-programmes it tends to run mean it all too easily misses those pitfalls the BLUE vMEME excels in spotting.

Go back 40-50 years and the banks and building societies in the UK – the main sources of money for the man in the street – were very BLUE in their approach to lending. Getting money out of them was not that easy. BLUE’s running of Little Detail, Procedures and Move Away From meta-programmes meant lots of detail in the application, lots of checks and, as often as not, sitting in front of a posturing bank manager and trying to convince him (always a ‘him’ in those days!) personally that a) you wanted the money for a worthwhile reason (a holiday in Spain would have been considered a frivolous waste by most of them!) and that b) you quite clearly had the means to pay it back within the specified period.

As the culture of lending has moved more from BLUE to ORANGE, so the checks have been fewer and in less depth. ORANGE is too focussed on its targets of so much money lent and so much money made to bother with all that BLUE drudgery of checking. Beside which, checking might mean turning more would-be borrowers down and that would make it harder to meet those sales targets!

But what of the people who receive all these wonderful offers of easy money? To examine their thinking in Spiral Dynamics terms…

  • ORANGE is likely to take the money and use it for strategic ends, with some thought as to being able to repay, dependent on its goals being achieved.
  • BLUE is unlikely to borrow unless it has a certain route to pay it back and it is for a worthwhile cause.
  • RED…ah, this is where the problem really comes! Instant gratification is one of the hallmarks of RED thinking – so easy money simply by filling in a form or making a telephone call is very appealing. RED will use that money to fulfull its whims and indulgences – healthy or unhealthy – and since RED doesn’t really think into the future and doesn’t therefore register consequences, the issue of repayment is something to be considered another day. ‘Right now I can do all this with all this money!’ And, when the debt recovery people start getting heavy, why there’s another 2 credit card applications just dropped through the letter box – so the starter debit from credit card 2 can be used to stall the debt recoverers from credit card 1 while the starter debit from credit card 3 can be used to indulge more whims and dreams.
  • PURPLE is less likely to borrow. being much more conservative in nature; but much will depend on the family’s traditional attitude towards borrowing. Indebtedness can be an accepted way of life throughout generations where the PURPLE vMEME is dominant. PURPLE’s need for security means it may sometimes borrow today and accept (often rather stoically) the resulting longer-term penury. Like RED, PURPLE has little sense of consequence except where consequences have been played out in the familial past. Even then the consequences are often accepted rather phlegmatically as part of life. (Hence, the historical influence of the pawnbrokers and the loan sharks among the traditional working classes.)

Since a significant percentage of the British population is centred in the PURPLE-RED zones, ORANGE’s offers of easy money will be taken up quite readily, often without any conception of how to manage repayments. Even for people who have accessed higher vMEMES, the lure of such easy money can excite their RED so much it overrides BLUE’s prudence.

It is those whose thinking has migrated to BLUE or who are in the RED-BLUE transition who will suffer at the hands of the debt recovery people. They will suffer from guilt at having failed to do the ‘right thing’ – ie: keep up the repayments. Those with high PURPLE may also suffer as they may feel they have betrayed and left vulnerable their family.

Mario Opalka told his son, Jonathon, of his indebtedness just two weeks before his suicide. Although Jonathon tried to explore potential solutions with his father,  he says his father was “ashamed”. (Mario had taken up internet gamling after his wife had died of cancer. So one might assume a pattern of damaged PURPLE compensated for by RED indulgence and then punished by PURPLE-BLUE guilt.)

At one level, the lenders wanting the money back is not only desirable but necessary – perhaps for survival! If the BLUE Procedures and Little Detail meta-programmes of the accountants don’t focus on turning theoretical assets into liquid assets, the paper profits generated by the salespeople will turn into cash liabilities – and then the lenders are in debt! The British financial institutions will long remember the Midland Bank getting into serious difficulties in the late 1980s through over-lending – thus making it vulnerable to takeover by HSBC.

So what to do…?
From what must have been a terribly distressing experience, Susan Lewis has put forward 3 proposals: the number of credit cards one person can be given should be limited; there should be a limit on the amount of credit anyone is given; and proper credit checks should be carried out.

Malcolm Hurlston seems to think the credit card companies should manage borrowers through internal processes. “Rather than focusing on the number of cards, however, we would like to see creditors paying more attention to how the customer is dealing with the debt. Any customer paying no more than the minimum amount each month on a number of cards is already over-indebted, with debts about to spiral out of control. Minimum payment information needs to be shared among creditors so they can make better decisions.” Hurlston’s proposal seems to me better (in terms of management theory) but perhaps idealistic. ORANGE will only allow a form of systematic management where either it is under external threat if it doesn’t or it clearly can see the benefits of that form of management to its strategic goals. And ORANGE will break the rules of the system wherever it sees fit. Think of the way commercial companies tend to treat ISO 9000. Something to be complied with rather than embraced. (ORANGE despises it but uses it as it suits and goes through the motions of compliance for external accreditation. BLUE loves it but will gum up the processes with rigidity if allowed to.)

John Mann seems not to trust the credit card companies to process manage borrowers: “The system isn’t working, and if the industry won’t regulate itself, politicians will have to step in.” The regulatory approach espoused by Mann and Mrs Lewis and the borrower-management processes suggested by Hurlston both offer potential real solutions and both require BLUE. The problem is that BLUE will function efficiently only to the degree allowed by ORANGE which is a much more complex way of thinking. (Which explains how so many ISO 9000 assessors and other kinds of ‘inspector’ get the ‘wool’ pulled over their eyes!) The fact is that the ORANGE ‘genie’ is out of the cultural ‘bottle’ and we can’t go back to the kind of BLUE thinking which dominated lending 40-50 years ago. (Nor should we want to, considering ORANGE’s wealth-generating capabilities!)

BLUE regulations and processes certainly have their place – and perhaps are essential for this industry. However, ORANGE also needs watching from a more complex point of view which understands what ORANGE does, which understands how it will exploit less complex thinking sytems (PURPLE and RED) and how it can outwit BLUE. Yet a point of view which doesn’t want to stop ORANGE generating wealth.

Perhaps would-be borrowers should be psychologically-assessed to determine their capability of handling debt and what amount of debt? The obvious checks are not always the ones we need to make: Stephen Lewis was on a not-unreasonable salary and at the time of his death was still within his given credit limits.

There are not necessarily easy straight-forward answers to what is at heart a multi-vMEME issue. But, until we understand the complex inter-vMEME issues at play here, we are unlikely to be able to propose solutions that will stick. As so often, it’s a case of starting with the right questions!