CGM Complexity Governance Model

CGM Complexity Governance Model MARCH 2018 COBAWU INSTITUTE & CORE , Germany & Switzerland Layout and print April 2018 © Andreu Ginestet Design: Ass.-Professor Andreu Ginestet Text: Ass.-Professor Andreu Ginestet Professor Dr. Karolin Eva Kappler Dr. Cordula Reimann All rights reserved Printed in EU Cover Image by Cristina Mel Fri https://twitter.com/cristinamelfri 16 pictures of manifestations in Catalonia on behalf of the Catalan independence are a common picture in Europe since the 2008 crisis. Pictures of manifestations suggest that existing state structures do not have the situation under control. States do not satisfy the expectations of a complex citizenship that increases responsible and autonomous attitudes at the expenses of authoritarian top-down political mandates. Rising complexity throws Global Civil Society in a dilemma with regards to the question of human identity and destiny. This is an ever-growing problem in the world and precisely in regions of the world like Europe. Europe pretends to be the haven of democracy. It seems Europeans take it seriously and discuss it in the streets. 1 CGM 2 Complexity Governance Model Main parts of this document were produced as an international entry for the Global Challenges Prize competition 2017, A New Shape, Remodeling Global Cooperation (Stockholm, Sweden), and was admitted on September 30th 2017. Dr. Cordula Reimann Dr. Karolin Kappler Andreu Ginestet A joint venture of core & COBAWU Institute Wuppertal Published by the COBAWU (COmplexity BAlanced World United) Institute, Gartenstr. 8 in de/42107 Wuppertal, Germany 3 Table of Contents Abstract..................................................................................................................page 5 Introduction.............................................................................................................page 7 1. System of violence: Trauma prevention as main target of CGM…….……..page 8 2. Trauma and Economy………………………………………………………….…page 12 3. CGM’s change of narrative and practice………………………………………page 14 4. CGM’s organizational structure…………………………………………………page 17 5. Decision making within CGM……………………………………………………page 19 6. CGM going universal and international………………………………….…….page 20 7. Long-term objectives of CGM…………………………………………………...page 21 8. How does CGM work? ……………………………………………………………page 21 9. Financing……………………………………………………….……..…………….page 23 10. Other Key Features of Complexity Governance…….……………………...page 24 11. CGM compared to existing governance models…….……………………..page 25 12. In a nutshell…..…………………………………………...……………….……...page 27 13. Core Values……………………………………………….…..…..……...……….page 29 14. Effectiveness……………………………………………….……..……...………page 33 References………………………………………...………………………………..….page36 The COBAWU Institute………………………………………………………………page 39 CORE……………………………………………….……..……...……...……………..page 42 4 CGM Complexity Governance Model Abstract Complexity Governance Model (CGM) is a radical innovation and offers nothing less than a change of international policy narrative: CGM facilitates the understanding, analysis and addressing of natural and human-made crises, such as violent conflicts and wars. CGM’s innovation consists in the fact that it links different fields of academic research and governance practice such as epigenetics, trauma research, conflict and peace research, physics, complexity theory and system theory of violence. The analytical starting point of CGM is to understand violence as a social system: Understanding violence as a system, it becomes clear that violence is not easily changed and transformed. Thinking of violence as a system stresses that violence is unpredictable and that attempts to transform violence will be met with open and hidden forms of resistance. At the same time, to think of violence as a system forces us to have an in-depth understanding of the psychological, social, political, economic, and further patterns driving violence. Our argument is that (individual and collective) trauma constitutes one of the main key driving factors of violence. Based on the values of universality, sustainability and complexity caring, CGM’s main objective is to prevent, reduce and transform (individual and collective) trauma and violence. The key entry-point for transforming trauma and violence is the method of Complexity Caring. Resonating with the value of universality, Complexity Caring knows no barriers of race, social, political and economic status, gender or faith. Our understanding is that human beings wishing to fully embrace complexity can only do so through Complexity Caring as it operates on three levels: the ability of putting oneself into the shoes of someone and “caring for each other”, caring for the self-well-being and “transgenerational” caring which implies that every personal decision impacts community relationships. This way, complexity itself – essentially information between social agents – is simultaneously emotionally and rationally addressed in one simple and solid CGM strategy. Taking individual and collective trauma as an analytical starting point, CGM starts at the micro-level, combining public participation in public and specifically conceptualized trainings: These and capacity-building workshops form – first on a micro-level and later also on a meso- and macro-level – nucleae of Complexity Governance and enhance 5 vital complexity.1 Illustrative examples will show how our understanding of Complexity Governance works in practice: Its greatest strength and innovation is that it facilitates the analytical grasp of a local or international human-made or natural crisis and responds and finds solutions in a timely and effective manner. Solutions and tasks are gathered adequately and timely because CGM is based on the activity of trained social agents working locally and internationally. In contrast to new governance models which have emerged in the last decades, CGM stands for a radical shift in governance practice, providing a universal definition of human life that is centred around complexity, understanding that human beings are one out of many possible complexity patterns. This constellation puts human existence in permanent perception of balance with all of complexity in which human existence resides. CGM is the only governance model that promotes and enables Complexity Caring politics with the ideas and parameters of horizontal governance: CGM implies a shift of the presently reigning dominance model (also present i.e. in representative democracies) to a partnership and peer-to-peer model and understanding of politics. Following the subsidiary principle, so-called local and international connected Complexity Observatories will help to analyse the crisis at the lowest level possible and help to implement solutions correspondingly. Most importantly, CGM is based on the deep conviction and sound evidence from international research and practice that trauma and violence in all their forms and manifestations can and should be prevented through radically changing and transforming the narrative, mental models and belief systems in all societies vis-à-vis Complexity Caring. As a result, CGM offers a two-fold strategy: On the one hand, CGM aims at trauma and violence prevention. The strategic reduction of trauma has implications into all the ability of preventing and coping with crises, reducing transaction costs to a minimum. The CGM keeps all of trauma low to reduce the cost of social transactions and expand economic activity into unimaginable profit in terms of time and happiness. On the other hand, CGM proactively tackles existing and future problems, shifting aspects from a perception of dividedness among humans towards a shared form of complexity caring. 1 This implies that mainly contingent complexity is the output of any activity. Contingent complexity is unexpected and free complexity, produced i.e. within arts, science and all attitudes leading to freedom. 6 Introduction The Complexity Governance Model (CGM) is a solution-oriented and strategic approach to transform natural and human-made crises, based on complexity theory and systems theory. Following this logic, human-made crises, such as extreme poverty and demographic explosion, as well as politically motivated violence with its expression in wars, civil wars or terrorism to mention some examples, can be precisely described in complexity terms (for an overview on complexity theories see Brian Castellani). Until now, the field of conflict and peace research has heavily focussed on empirical and theoretical study of the attitudes, processes and institutions driving conflicts, violence, non-violence and conflict transformation. Systems theory has only recently entered conflict and peace research in the form of systems approaches to conflict analysis and conflict transformation (see e.g. the work of Berghof Research Center, CDA Collaborative Learning Projects and Robert Ricigliano). In this context, we understand our approach as an innovative and far-reaching contribution to this recent development. 7 Illustration 1: Refugee crisis by Jordi Bernabeu Farrús 1. System of violence: Trauma prevention as main target of CGM To fully understand violence as a system implies to think along the following four lines: First, to become aware of the interconnectedness of patterns i.e. drivers/causes of violence and effects. An illustrative example may be corruption and impunity as drivers of structural violence – yet, structural violence may also be a cause and will further enforce corruption while corruption also feeds into impunity and these dynamics, in turn, further enforce structural violence. Second, this interconnectedness speaks to and reflects dynamic causality i.e. to think about violence as non-linear and linear processes of social change and power distribution. Power needs to be understood as a driver or a force to shape complexity. Third, dynamic causality includes particular mechanisms and dynamics, so-called feedback loops: As all factors are related and connected, there are automatic feedback mechanisms included: Intervening into a system or changing a factor will have an impact on all other factors. This also means to say that systems have the capacity to selfreproduce. Yet, this resilience makes them difficult to be changed from outside: Systems will respond to changes with resistance. Going back to the example above, this means too, that trying to change e.g. the level of corruption in a country will in the end also change the levels of impunity. Yet, at the same time, the perpetrators of impunity or corruption will react – most likely with resistance. 8 Fourth, we argue that one purpose of the system of violence is the reduction of human complexity production. One of the visible symptoms of a complexity reduction is the control over the current status quo or power containment and domination reducing freedom and diversity. Now thinking of violence as a social system, it becomes clear that violence is not easily changed and transformed. In fact, it is unpredictable and attempts to transform it will be met with open and hidden forms of resistance. At the same time, to think of violence as a system forces us to have an in-depth understanding of the psychological, social, political, economic, and further patterns driving violence. Our argument is that (individual and collective) trauma constitutes one of the main key driving factors of violence. Definition of Trauma and how it works? Trauma happens when the process of integrating experiences of extreme stress is interrupted and this blockage is on-going. This happens due to specific neurophysiological reactions to extreme stress conditions, which inhibit the normal processing in the brain’s network. Research shows that trauma influences patterns of learning, dealing with stress and social interactions. Trauma damages the structures of the brain (the “hardware”) and its functions (the “software”) or emotional states, which subtly become part of the psychological, dissociative make-up of a person. Starting from the trauma definition above, we define collective trauma as a broken process of learning how to deal with and integrate extreme levels of stress, impacting the social dynamics, processes, structure and functioning of a collective. The learning and integration process is hampered by a combination of four collective identity markers: collective narratives of loss and despair, collective victimhood, collective angst and other related emotions, and exclusive values, norms, “mental models” and “belief systems” that are characterized by a rigidity of thinking without most people being consciously aware of them (see Reimann and König forthcoming). As we will argue below, epigenetics plays a key role how trauma works collectively. Since 2008, there has been established evidence that there is a direct correlation between trauma in brains and violent behaviour. Trauma impact may lower genuine empathy capacity to the extent of empathy vanishing, leading to severe mental health issues and/or psychopathic behaviour. Psychopathic behaviour inflicts more violence and trauma on others, enforcing a violence spiral. Violence then expands into human epigenetics in terms of fractals, eroding human empathy. 9 The process of trauma influences the structure of our brains. This is particularly harmful in the early phases of the brain’s development. The stress causes the de-activation of certain parts of the DNA which are important for the development of the brain. The “hardware” is damaged, and with it also parts of the brain which are important for empathy. Due to the neuroplasticity of the human brain, a lot (but not everything) can be recovered. Early trauma in childhood implicitly and subtly becomes part of the psyche or psychological make-up of a person. If not explicitly addressed or dealt with, the consequences of trauma – not confronted and effectively dealt with – probably will be transmitted from parents to children, hence the next generation is more prone to trauma or the trauma itself is transferred. The amount of trauma going down generations depends on social and physical environmental conditions, described as social resilience. Latest research has shown the trans-generational transmission of traumatic experiences through epigenetics into genetic functioning, with long-lasting impacts on general health and mental health issues in the following generations, such as schizophrenia, sincere stress disorders, or diabetes type 2. Further, research by DeGruy on transgenerational trauma experienced by African Americans points to a “post-traumatic slave syndrome” highlighting the multi-generational impact of racial discrimination and segregation, underlining the effects on specific adaptive behaviours of the next generation/s including destructive patterns such as inferiority complex, deep sense of shame, “learned” powerless- and helplessness, rejection of state education institution, and degradation of one’s own ethnic group. It is important to stress that research on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is still very much in its infancy. And while so far, no sound empirical evidence on trauma of war-affected refugees and populations in the last five decades and the lasting impact on their and their offspring’s genes exists, preliminary research highlights the relevance and impact of epigenetics for the ability of resilience and the subconscious and bodyrelated level aspects of trauma. While trauma deforms day-to-day attitudes and personal and collective behaviour, research on trauma and resilience has shown that timely tailor-made interventions such as therapy and capacity-building training workshops (which work on conscious and subconscious levels) can counter and transform trauma. The following illustrative example is very much along the lines of CGM’s method and process, the so-called Complexity Caring training circle. 10 Practical examples of how to transform trauma & reduce violence Gary Slutkin has described violence as an illness that is highly contagious and needs medical treatment in terms of an endemic disease. His approach and research in the USA has proven that there is a possibility of rapidly changing trauma impact on society by training social worker strategy in community mediation. The outcome of his program has been a substantial (80%) reduction of criminality in the streets of Chicago within 3 years, as published by Slutkin. Since funding for his program was withdrawn, criminality has grown by 800%. 2 The refugee crisis is -unhappily- the next blatant example of why and how violence could be reduced -but isn’t. Violence serves private company interests which need violence to be able to spread fear (create a problem) and cure the problem (paternalism and authoritarian state policies). In order to steal natural resources, the best is to create chaos like in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali, Yemen, etc. One just needs to see what the present government of Ukraine published in August 2017 to understand why the Maidan was created in the first place, creating several waves of refugees.3 Obviously, any refugee crisis sets humanity under stress. It is the way refugee crisis are solved that restores trauma or induces recovery (illustration 1). And the easiest way to reduce this type of violence is by stopping the source of refugee crises: - first, stopping post-colonial behaviours, - stopping resource exploitation of foreign countries by Western countries, - stopping weapon manufacturing, - stopping illegal wars (of which the US lead at least 180 black-ops/year as published i.e. by Jeremy Scahill in his book Dirty Wars), - stopping energy and water wars with rational sharing of resources, and thus implying too, that we seek a general pattern of empathy-driven strategies within Western industrial culture. 2 In 2015, partisan warring over Illinois state budgets claimed it s first round of casualties. CeaseFire, Cure Violence’s flagship violence interruption program using ex -convicts to prevent murders, had its funding slashed. Despite achieving a 41% to 73% reduction in shootings across seven of Chicago’s most violent communities, the project was cut to the bone. In the following year, 266 more Chicago residents lost their lives to homicide than in 2015 —a 58% rise, and the highest number of homicides since 1997. Chicago alone was responsible for ha lf the nationwide spike in homicides. To be read in: https://apolitical.co/solution_article/cure-violence-cutshootings-41-73-chicago-can-go-global/ and to be further explored. 3 In August 2017, the government of Ukraine published on its own state Website, that the new economic counsellor of Ukraine is the Rothschild Bank, also published by Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-eurobonds/ukraine-picks-rothschild-as-advisor-hopes-for-debtswap-idUSL8N1LO3RP 11 Illustration 2: Peace-economics win over war-economics, Andreu Ginestet, Afghanistan report 2010 2. Trauma and Economy Based on our understanding of violence as a system and trauma prevention as one of the main aims of CGM, one must consider that a large portion within humanity endures (consciously or unconsciously) different forms of trauma of different degrees. Based on national figures of rape in Western and non-Western countries, we assume that trauma rates vary between 20% and 90%, affecting both male and female population. It is sufficiently known within society, that trauma and its mid- to long-term effects are expensive to all of society. Economists like Douglas C. North have proven that transaction costs (those include costs of restoration after trauma impact) destroy entire economies and civilizations. One would assume that the immense cost of violence to society would trigger political decisions in favour of research efforts in this direction. This is not the case. Reminding policy- and decision-makers that the cost of violence is horrendous to society has so far shown little effect. We would like to suggest four reasons why little has happened: 1. There is lack of long-term vision and thinking among key politicians and economists. 2. The profit-making and the enforcing of social and political privileges in the form of income segregation and tax revenue of governments dominate public and political thinking and actions: In the same way, so called “corporatocracy” uses all its might and power to allegedly evade social responsibility to the detriment of social tissues and in favour of single players, the health and finance oligarchy is first –using and abusing politics. This makes sense in terms of complexity science versus human species as it keeps complexity low, always in favour and always well-tuned with the system of violence as a regulator of human complexity. 12 3. Economic elites use violence as a general pattern of behaviour to extort labour and resources from a large majority and within the large majority a huge proportion of people participate in the outlined complexity pattern of extortion and corruption. 4. Keeping society under „latent insecurity“ ensures an easier „controllability“ of citizens by state authorities. Uniformity and erosion of standards in education adds to social fragility as it lowers quality and variety of popular response to cumulated stress imposed by both social and environment factors. Violence as a system creates synergies and dependencies with the structures of power and people implementing them. The structures, victims and perpetrators are part of and inform the violent conditions, cementing a violent narrative. While we can explain the reason why violence is used as operational basis, we cannot yet fully explain why such a large proportion of human beings silently accepts stark power hierarchies and inequalities. We trust that there is a logical explanation to the phenomenon along the lines of the logic of violence as a system. We assume that CGM will help peace economics (illustration 2) win at large over war economics. This implies a deep understanding of CGM structural influence on society. Illustration 3: Evolution of economics towards empathy 13 3. CGM’s change of narrative and practice CGM proposes nothing less than a change of narrative and practice: CGM is based on the premise that the human species defines itself outside biological parameters, in terms of physics. Humans are represented as human complexity patterns: Humankind is defined as a universal, self-responsible, interdependent, contingent complexity expression. This new definition of the self allows for the enlargement of capabilities and proprieties humans attribute to themselves. This is an important step, because it gives human beings more options, tools and capacity to cope with and regulate or design complexity. To us, designing complexity is one of the most effective and efficient ways to implement a culture of violence and trauma prevention. Humans improve adaptation capacities to the dynamism of environment and complexity, which grow due to reciprocity among the environment and the human species. Humanity is now in a transition period. Humanity has grown. It has bent the horizon of the understanding of the self and is about to implode. The reason is that the human species has created a huge amount of complexity and that the presently imposed biological definition of the self is not able to cope with the total amount of complexity created. CGM values one real and remaining human-capital, which is time. The change of narrative suggested by CGM is also reflected in the value given and the use of time. 14 Change of narrative in detail The change of narrative suggested by CGM is best reflected and visualized in the Complexity Caring Wheel illustrated as a cylinder: Illustration 4: complexity caring wheel, COBAWU Institute The Complexity Caring Wheel is an analytical juxtaposition of seven processes of Complexity Caring (coloured pie slices) vis-à-vis four categories of complexity (inner wheels). Every human activity can be framed and put in the wheel and this way time and the usage of time is structured into a cycle. According to Prigogine, a cyclic usage of time is eternal, confirming the linearity of time and its direction towards the future. The cyclic process of Complexity Caring consists of a sequence of 7 emotional patterns, which allows for coping with the total of human complexity. It is the core strategy of complexity governance. Applying this emotional strategy, the CGM core values universality, sustainability and Complexity Caring are best practiced. The seven emotional patterns are: openness & curiosity, inspiration & intuition, courage & transformation, maturing, reflection, moments of happiness, constructive dealing with & transformation of fear. 15 This cyclic process of Complexity Caring crosses four categories of complexity. The following four complexity categories are the minimum consensus to describe all of complexity in the universe in terms of practicability for humans: - Absolute complexity consists of fragments, e.g. demography. - Relative complexity is any communication between fragments. - Contingent complexity is any optional transformation of a fragment or its communication. - Context complexity is about how complexity patterns are perceived and interpreted according to the environment. As human intelligence requires emotions to frame rational categories, there is not a single complexity type that would not be emotionally connoted (see e.g. research by Claudius Gros). Going through the Complexity Caring cycle enables fully vital complexity. Any incomplete Complexity Caring cycle produces lethal complexity. The Complexity Caring Wheel is only one analytical layer out of several CGM uses. It forms part of an analytical cube, named Complexity Caring Cube, which consists of 7 analytical layers altogether. The cube’s output is the complexity index of any information analysed in the cube. Some of the main results obtained from an analysis of data with the cube are context relevant levels of lethal and vital complexity. 16 4. CGM’s organizational structure CGM consists of people and spaces, which form locally embedded sustainable networks of collaborative action: - People within CGM are trainers and trainees. - The people within CGM are organized in a network or grid. The task of the trainers is to train more trainers and trainees according to the needs of the network of empathy workers as to allow for civil self-implemented complexity governance. - Following a rotation principle, the trainers operate as administrators to guarantee the working of the networks of sustainable action. - Spaces for work are existing rooms around the globe in any physical space available depending on the context specific conditions. These spaces are named Complexity Observatories, a concept similar to meteorological stations. - Each network of sustainable action forms a Complexity Observatory, while all Complexity Observatories together are named World Grid of Complexity Observatories (WGCO). - WGCO adapts to environmental changes and conflicts and permanently modulates its size to the required needs: WGCO increases its capacities if a natural catastrophe occurs like a seismic shift, earthquake, meteorite impact, draught, flooding, Tsunami, hurricane, tornado, etc., and it will adapt according to the needs detected by the grid. - 50.000 observatories are roughly planned. They work as meteorological stations, connected and detecting the flows of complexity on planet earth. WGCO uses an intranet and manages complexity internally in terms of data. - Roughly 500.000 trainers serve in permanence at WGCO. Roughly 1.000.000 trainers remain in the pool of trainers ready for a call on duty. 17 Illustration 5: The heart and its network, Andreu Ginestet, Global Challenges competition 2017 18 - Operators are all people working within CGM after training: 1 observatory per 1 million citizens operates in regions in which rates for trauma with epigenetic aberration score below 20%. In regions where trauma rate with epigenetic aberration scores above 30% of population, one observatory per 100.000 citizens is due. Regions scoring between 20% and 30% will be decided case by case. Assuming the change of narrative regarding selfdefinition of humans is accepted, the world population stabilizes, and trauma rates score lower than 20%, 1/1.000.000 citizens observatories operate with a 30% security-margin to prevent any catastrophe. - ± 1.5 million trainers train 10 to 100 trainees each, every year. This process of education lasts until it takes effect and complexity governance as a universal rule is established. This includes that the necessary critical mass of people within all human population is trained in complexity governance in the grid. 5. Decision making within CGM CGM becomes the first universal democratic structure in terms of people-to-people that aims at simple organization capacity, no formalized power structures, in open and benign competition with presently existing structures, following strict rules of complexity governance. The following points cover the time when CGM is operative. All points regarding the transition phase from present to CGM will be discussed further below. Who is in charge? A group of engaged trainers within WGCO make decisions in the first 10 years. They are active until institutionalized processes and responsibilities are in place. Engaged trainers report to the full assembly of WGCO operators. The WGCO holds a full assembly at which roughly 1.5 million WGCO members partake. Where does decision making take place? The full assembly takes the form of a virtual gathering, in the form of an online JAM like at NATO and EU. When and how are decisions taken? Every six months the fully assembly meets: These WGCO meetings operate three days in a row. Decisions are taken consensus-based. A focus will be on the formerly silenced groups of people, the aim being that for all decisions, all participants live the ownership of the process and results. As the basic democratic set-up of a country like Switzerland shows, the CGM decision making model should not be mistaken for a politically revolutionary idea of social transformation. 19 6. CGM going universal and international Complexity governance itself is regarded as a universal and natural good, like any other responsibility within society, like providing sufficient hygiene or health care. The understanding of complexity is achieved through awareness, training and bodily and cognitive changes. The training produces awareness and capacity of complexity governance as a selfimplemented universal and popular good: If a traumatic experience happens, such as rape, sexual and emotional abuse, famine, exposure to direct physical violence, etc. a person is supposed to protect her/himself and feel capacitated to deal with that trauma. The same happens with complexity. When CGM is operative, a person is also able to deal with complexity while creating it. First target is the instruction of 1.5 million specialists on complexity governance through dissemination of multipliers. CGM transforms over time into daily habitus, meaning that Complexity Caring becomes individual and collective behaviour. 20 Illustration 6: CGM spreading globally, Andreu Ginestet, Global Challenges Competition 2017 7. Long-term objectives of CGM There are four key objectives: 1. Reduction of trauma rates with epigenetic aberration below 20% worldwide in 5 years. 2. Increase Complexity Caring and complexity governance capacity by 100% of potential within the population freed of trauma with epigenetic aberration. 3. Base worldwide economy on empathy and complexity governance capacity to reduce trauma. Each trauma reduction boosts economic development to an unimaginable degree, albeit not for financial elites. Complexity governance will secure that this development is sustainable. Additionally, we propose to implement Mechanical Valley (see chapter 10) strategies, too. 4. Reduce the impact of the human species on the planet by keeping a reliable demography control and addressing a stabilization of human demography based on Complexity Caring. 8. How does CGM work? Data collection & production Working with the Complexity Analysis Cube on complex issues like nutrition or health, CGM gathers available data and provides indicators for complexity governance. This working-process is - in terms of complexity governance - the equivalent of temperature measurements and pressure measurements around the globe to predict or forecast weather. CGM members have access to cube analytics. If all of humanity has been trained, then all humans have access to data. The complexity observatories grid has simple tools to evaluate complexity in narrowed terms. These tools operate like traffic lights: red light means this complexity data set shows a high index of lethal complexity and needs immediate intervention by the grid in an empathic mode. Yellow light means that any sample of data proves to contain some risk with lethal consequences, and these risks are then interfered by certain groups within the grid, which are specialized in the precise type of crisis risk assess- 21 ment. Green light implies that the data set is healthy, and the human group producing complexity can go on living its life. As a vision, CGM seeks a green complexity traffic light on the entire planet. Realistically, this will not happen as crises within any species are normal. The main goal is to maintain the maximum of violence within any social context in a proportion of less than 20% of the population under scrutiny. The implementation of CGM The dissemination and implementation of CGM works on three levels with different dynamics. Immediate points of action - Complexity Caring is introduced to the individual level with the “theatre of the oppressed” and Complexity training to enhance resilience and empathic governance. - Complexity Caring at the local level establishes sustainable networks of collaborative action to elaborate priorities of action. - WGCO on the international level cooperates with national and international governance agencies proposing Complexity Caring for global governance priorities. This occurs i.e. elaborating CGM policies on migration-phenomena in the context of violence-osmosis and permeability to violence of and in different societies. Right now, violence (mainly induced by private business and financial greed of few to very few and controllable interest groups) produces conflicts, exodus, migration and by these means it carries the trauma induced i.e. in Syria throughout Europe with no consideration for the happiness and rights of the Syrian refugees or the European population which is completely ignorant of the real causes for the conflicts like Syria or Ukraine, because it is categorically and radically disinformed or duped. Mid- and long-term perspective After the training of a critical mass of CGM-trainers, CGM as a way of thinking, acting and governing will enter all spheres of life, politics and economy through its peer-topeer dissemination. Consequently, the WGCO starts governing a substantial part of the commons. 22 9. Financing Although the contents and learning of CGM can be easily integrated into everyday lives, the living of trainees, trainers and administrators must be guaranteed. Therefore, CGM claims either basic income regime for the whole population or a budget for CGM operators. Financing will be based on a holistic business plan which strategically includes several financial resources such as crowd-funding, public-private partnerships, philanthropic foundations, alternative and green banks and private donations. Financing of the Complexity Observatories will be gathered through one-to-one sponsorships with existing service organizations, such as the Lions Club, which already disposes of 46,000 local clubs and more than 1.4 million members in over 200 countries worldwide. First contacts with these organizations have been favourable and promise future cooperation. In parallel, alternative ways of non-monetary financing will be implemented with innovative elements from sharing economy, crowd-sourcing and open-access movement to social innovation (illustration 6). Illustration 7: Responses outside capitalism, Andreu Ginestet, Global Challenges Competition 2017 23 10. Other Key Features of Complexity Governance World Trauma Mapping As the result of violence is a recession of human complexity in absolute terms (all human complexity production is reduced through violence), CGM keeps this issue as its first priority. It is the most important issue to be worked on. This is about keeping full capacity of producing solutions to problems within human groups. To this aim, CGM proposes to do a World Trauma Mapping (WTM): It allows one to understand how far epigenetics is being wronged and how far intervention is necessary. Measuring epigenetic methylation in simple blood tests may provide one important and precise indicator for trauma impact. With this, the core value Complexity Caring is addressed. Mechanical Valley (MV©) The MV describes the CGM economic system devoted to vital complexity. The MV is thought as a human economic project in which people find humanity and work. Present economic and political developments lead to an ever-growing economic disparity between the ever fewer rich and ever larger group of poor always in favour of a tiny group of elites. The design of MV is thought to be an alternative solution to violence and a guarantee to coexistence on earth. The concept of the MV is intrinsically connected to CGM and Complexity Caring. It describes how economic incentives automatically lead to a regulation of human activity patterns (in terms of CGM) through design, production and consumption. MV transforms every single task that is at present solved by an electronic slave into a task that is solved by human activities through intelligent and very attractive mechanical action. As soon as MV comes into effect, human lifestyle mutates from a consumer attitude towards a responsible Complexity Caring attitude, thus disabling entropy and crises. MV implements Complexity Caring for the economy. The MV-economy prioritises the following four main groups of behavioural attributions grounded in a mechanisation of products and their usage: - First, recycling and a culture of participation increase the feeling of self-worth, and reinforce participative democracy and cooperation; 24 - Second, flexibility and beauty enhance the ecological and economic as well as social and educational quality of devices; - Third, pleasant and ergonomic mechanical products positively affect aggression and frustration levels, emotional balance and playful physical activity; and - Fourth, an increase in individualized, and aesthetically diverse devices generate direct communication and a higher freedom of choices and creativity, as well as stronger bonding and feeling of enhanced responsibility. 11. CGM compared to existing governance models Although a couple of new governance models have emerged in the last decades, mostly either for managing commons or based on crowd- and co-working aspects, little emphasis has been given to complexity and violence as main features of governance. The shortcomings of the existing governance models could be summarized as follows: - Existing governance models are short-lived in legislative periods of four to five years. - Most of governance models are anthropocentric and not complexity centred, contradicting the very reason for the existence of human interaction. - Most strategies used within conventional governance models are centred on power and how to maintain power. Power politics and strategies are only a tiny portion of possible complexity governance types and do not represent in any way the plurality of options. - Existing governance models are very often coloured by very narrow and selfish interests, which do not enclose those dimensions required for the survival of human species. - Most existing governance models produce complication and not complexity through bureaucracy, procedures and decision-making. - Existing governance models seem to emulate capitalism in its worst fashion and do not care for the fragility of life on planet earth. The main difference between CGM and neo-liberal capitalism or communism in terms of Complexity Governance is that distribution of time, needs, values and resources in capitalism and communism are organized by a few single social and political agents like in the form of an abstract rationale, disconnected of human needs that ensures profit for the sake of profit in capitalism) and/or an inadequate allocation of resources which is not stra- 25 tegic, is blunt (top-down) and technically inappropriate. In CGM all economic endeavour is based on the principle of diversity and needs-oriented approaches enhancing complexity caring. - CGM embodies sustainability as one of its core values (extending far beyond the Brundtland Commission report). One of CGM’s key elements is the understanding of the interrelations both at present and the future of social crises. Although the narrative of complexity has already scratched public discourses, it only represents a first little step towards CGM and what it does and stands for: a. CGM proposes a fundamental shift in governance practice, providing a universal definition of human life that is centred around complexity, understanding that human beings are one out of many possible complexity patterns. b. Diversity and creativity are a “must” in terms of complexity governance. Therefore, the biological conceptualization of quantity is omitted in favour of the concept of diversity. Diversity implies that for each living being an individual and creative solution needs to be created at any time and in any circumstance. c. CGM is the only governance model that promotes and enables Complexity Caring politics: Enhancing the “sense of basic trust”, CGM increases resilience of populations in the face of complexity crises. d. Horizontal governance implies a shift of the presently reigning dominance model to a partnership and peer-to-peer model and understanding of politics as proposed. In summary, CGM as a governance model defines a great departure from conventional understanding of governance: CGM provides with a complexity-based understanding of humanity and all its output. Most importantly, CGM puts the universal aspect of human fragility in the forefront, making clear how much Complexity Caring and fine-tuned action is urgently required to keep humanity alive, in sustainability terms and not in rudimentary survival terms. 26 Illustration 8: World Map from 1902, credit: SWmaps 12. In a nutshell We propose a complexity governance model (CGM) based on the epistemological and ontological premises of complexity (understood i.e. according to Einstein, Prigogine, Castellani, Mitchell, Bar Yam, and Niklas Luhmann). Complexity is a very large universal physical dimension – both a quality of our physical environment and human emotions and behaviours. In the past, human beings learned to deal with minor physical dimensions of life, subthemes of complexity such as time, space, temperature, or density. That was the time like physically described on the map of 1902. CGM considers human beings, all they do, all they perceive and every interaction between humans and their environment as complexity. While handling complexity has been a universal ability, it has also been dependent on context-specific influences. We define complexity as the non-linear and linear relationship of information and sense. Information and sense are always based on multiple perceptions and frames of references. Yet, despite all progress in science in general, humanity faces similar challenges today as in previous centuries: We, as human kind, are not able to fully embrace, manage or even master complexity. All political, economic and social challenges reflect and entail a high degree of complexity or complex information, be it climate change, multiculturalism or violent intra-state conflicts. 27 Current solutions to these challenges based on simplistic, linear cause-effect logics are doomed to fail. Moving towards a multi-causal understanding of social, economic and political issues and dynamics is only achievable if human beings learn how to deal with information as subjected to laws and rules of complexity itself. Learning to progressively manage and embrace complexity are the key benchmarks for our future existence and our environment in general and for CGM in particular. 28 13. Core Values of CGM The paradigm of complexity and CGM are guided by the following three core values: a) Universality, b) Complexity Caring and c) Sustainability all further elaborated below. a) Universality. Complexity is a universal phenomenon: It is not about moral or religious preferences or choices. Complexity can be communicated in universal mathematical language, which can be translated into rational thinking and emotions. We propose to focus on two key universal dimensions of complexity: vital and lethal complexity. Vital complexity consists of all relationship patterns, which serve, enable and ensure human progress. Lethal complexity consists of all relationships that scatter and fragment human existence and its resources. An illustrative example of vital complexity is the fact that when human beings learn how to deal with complexity, they do not shy away from asking complex questions and addressing challenges and they are able to find creative and out-of-the –box answers and solutions. As such, CGM assumes that all humans will learn how to intuitively address complexity once they have sufficiently precise information about procedures and data on which they can rely. Once a large enough portion of humanity, i.e. the “critical yeast” (in the understanding of Lederach) of actors has acquired skills through education, people learn how to deal with human-made crisis, with natural catastrophes and effects of climate change in a more effective way. Recent research has put forward sufficient and sound information to show that individual and collective behaviour can more easily be changed through i.e. epigenetics and environmental influences than previously thought. Talking of man-made crisis, we will anticipate a reduction of violent conflicts (from household to inter-state level) as human beings are aware and learn to effectively deal with complexity and to transform violence as collective and personal behaviour. In this perspective, violence is understood as the antipode of vital complexity and an example of lethal complexity. Violence is generally defined as a human-induced, social phenomenon, which encompasses structural, cultural and physical violence. Yet, in con- 29 trast to mainstream thinking conflict and peace research, we argue that violence within humanity is recorded on epigenetics through trauma: While there is no sufficient conclusive research done in humans on how the state of epigenetics affects behaviour, there are some first promising insights coming from empirical evidence. According to experiments with mice, the state of epigenetics does massively affect behavioural patterns in terms of negative destructive behaviour. Violent behaviour and the impact on the state of epigenetics are presumably correlated. Epigenetics deteriorate according to the amount of trauma, such as seen in the case of Cambodia and the transgenerationally passed trauma resulting in diabetes type 2 for a large portion of young people in the country. Transforming trauma and violence and their impact in social behaviours is the best way to accurately and precisely target complexity governance and human made crisis. The good news is that trauma can be transformed through Complexity Caring, one of the other core values CGM is based on. b) Complexity Caring. Resonating with the value of universality, Complexity Caring knows no barriers of race, social, political and economic status, gender or faith. Our understanding is that human beings wishing to fully embrace complexity can only do so through Complexity Caring as it operates on three levels: - The ability of putting oneself into the shoes of someone and “caring for each other” - Caring for the self-well-being - “Transgenerational” caring which implies that every personal decision impacts relationships with the community and environment. How do people get interested in or sensitized to questions of structural, cultural and personal violence and Complexity Caring? CGM proposes inclusion and public participation in two main forms: - Public fora using “Forum Theatre” or the “Theatre of the Oppressed” (originally developed by Boal, being considered as one of the most effective methods of social change by UNESCO in 1996). - Specific Complexity Caring training. 30 Different forms of structural violence are at the centre of focus “Theatre of the Oppressed”. The audience members play out different roles and scenarios on questions of social inequality and injustice. CGM understanding is that while playing out different scenarios, participants learn from the experiences of others and care for complexity playfully. Learning Complexity Caring and being in constant dialogue with others is an integral natural part of the process of playing out different plays and scenarios: The own lives of all participants become sites of critical inquiries of complexity and sensitize people for every day forms of violence. Importantly, given that all issues which will be played out in the “Theatre of the Oppressed” circle around questions of inequalities and the dichotomies of the perpetrator and the victim, the voice is also given to the "voiceless" and the marginalized which tend to be easily forgotten in other training or teaching methodologies. Theatre becomes a creative laboratory where people find ways to transform themselves, their communities, and the entire world politics. All theatre plots are followed up by specific trainings on Complexity Caring. Main focus of Complexity Caring training is to create awareness and share practiceoriented knowledge on the nexus of violence, epigenetics, and trauma in complexity terms. Training operates on three levels: emotions, cognition and body. All training exercises are tailored accordingly. Tailored to the audience’s learning capacity and age, the basics of genetics and epigenetics are explained to enable understanding and differentiation of personal and collective behavioural choices. Trainees build up operative units – the “critical yeast” for the CGM - as soon as 10 people learn complexity governance and regularly interact. Through the theatre and training methods anyone (without grave permanent learning disorders) can (re)learn to approach social reality and construct complexity in Complexity Caring terms. Both theatre and training are designed for and will be tailormade for children, men, women, transgenders irrespective of their social, political, class or religious background and their literacy rate. An integral part of the trainings will be bodily exercises like Yoga and deep meditation. The benefits of Yoga and meditation in helping people to (re)gain (bodily) awareness and mindfulness have been proven all around the world – be in prisons working with juveniles or ex-combatants in Colombia, Sri Lanka or Cambodia (compare i.a. Buric et al (2017): What Is the Molecular Signature... In: Front Immunol). 31 c) Sustainability. Sustainability is another core value underpinning CGM. Sustainability is a term describing how living species adapt to their environment effectively managing their existence and survival. In terms of complexity science, sustainability is an excellent example of vital complexity: Living in a sustainable manner implies that human species has a good, clear understanding of nature, its laws, transformation and dynamics and has vested interests in contributing to its sustainable development. Caring sustainability consists of pooling production of essential commodities worldwide and distributing them where they are required in accordance with complexity governance rules. As a logical consequence, CGM translates sustainable networks of collaborative action (see illustration 2) into practice. These in return enable intra- and trans-generational solidarity: Decisions taken within CGM take a long-terms perspective. And overarching production of Complexity Caring trumps over individual benefits: By this, we mean that as soon as complexity governance sets in, all human decisions are positively affected. No human system is left out, due to the strategic nature of the activities of CGM. Therefore, a type of awareness that does not exist to the present point in humanity will filter benefits for single individuals towards the large majority. In case of food shortage and famine, for example, CGM networks immediately get active and transfer required goods beyond national borders. CGM networks are structured in a subsidiary fashion, efficiently and effectively. 32 14. Effectiveness. CGM training leads to a 80/20 Pareto distribution in favour of complexity governance versus violence: by this we mean that the first wave of human-induced violence among human population will be reduced by 80% in 20% of the time. And the 20% of remaining violence reduction will take 80% of time. At the same time, we do not pretend that CGM will be able to address and reduce all (physical) violence because natural catastrophe will occur causing trauma. To the body, the nature of the origin of trauma is irrelevant. A tsunami can cause as much damage as a criminal action. Beyond being a core value, Complexity Caring is our guiding principle of effectiveness in the implementation of CGM. This implies that CGM can only be implemented through networks of partnership and cooperation like the sustainable networks of collaborative action. Competition among these networks is considered vital and healthy as long as it is directed towards creativity, innovation and sustainability. Given that the theatre and the Complexity Caring training works with the real-life problems of social inequality and injustice, we assure that the questions under discussion are relevant to the wider population. The various forms of learning from the theatre will be taken up in the trainings and focused on in greater detail. At the same time, through training of trainers and facilitators, we want to make sure that experienced and committed members of the community are available to ensure the continuous flow of information and transgenerational learning. Resources and Financing. Human and material resources for CGM are reduced to the allocation of resources to - Theatre plots and Complexity Caring training, - Integration of learning processes into daily behaviour, - Information sharing via Internet among networks of collaborative complexity with the aim of timely redistribution of resources depending on people and regions. We want to argue that following Douglas C. North’s concept of transaction costs, the resources required to reduce trauma and violence are infinitesimally much smaller compared to the positive output produced by handling complexity through complexity caring. 33 Flexibility. CGM is not only a model of decision-making, but also a strategy based on high flexibility and permanent adaptation. As mentioned earlier, the theatre described above works with the real-life situations and questions of social inequality of the wider population. By this understanding, CGM remains highly flexible adjusting the specific focus of the theatre to the specific needs of participants. While the training sets clear learning objectives and specific steps to take, the flows of information and communication are adjusted to the specific needs and interests of the people participating. Protection against the Abuse of Power We want to make sure that the least abuse of power will interfere with CGM by continuously and openly discussing core values universality, sustainability and Complexity Caring. Discussing the model is open to a great variety of actors such as, political parties, state administration, representatives of justice, military, economy, educational systems, security services, health services worldwide, and non-state armed groups. The responsible persons driving the implementation of CGM understand themselves as multi-partial actors. And as such, we do not set any prior benchmarks for discussion except for the general willingness and openness to discuss our values. While there are no prior benchmarks, we develop tailor made MOU for each respective actor. Latest research in data manipulation has underlined the fragility of privacy protection mechanisms within the World Wide Web and social media. While the responsible persons driving the design and implementation of CGM cannot guarantee 100% datasecurity-safety in CGM, we will strive institutionalized risk-assessments of our data-use. In parallel CGM demands all members to adhere to: - Mandatory transparency - Diversity of voices - Sustainable network of collaborative sharing and learning (see above) - Citizen science-based production of information. We aim to ensure that CGM teams use Complexity Caring rules to empower and enable critical thinking in favour of universality, sustainability and Complexity Caring. This translates into (i.e.) reduction of social inequality and economic sustainability. At 34 the same time, CGM structure contributes to on-going Citizen Science. Active Citizen Science is here defined as a process-based production of reference frames for human activity. In our understanding the “Theatre of the Oppressed” is a concrete form of active citizen science as participants define, continuously construct their social reality and produce context-specific and –relevant information, which will be the point of reference for new ideas of transforming realities and common experiences among wider members of the community. Accountability. We subscribe to a twofold understanding of accountability: downward and upward accountability. Downward accountability refers to the accountability to the wider population without formal power but with real power, because the larger population makes decisions consuming goods and designating empowered representatives. It takes i.e. the form of constant peer-group coaching and supervision on the implementation of CGM. Upward accountability refers to accountability to people in formal power. Our understanding is that the large majority of world-population will become part of the CGM-project and the participation of the wider community in the theatre plays and/or the complexity caring trainings are an illustrative example of downward accountability. CGM is a socio-political process, understanding that the process of learning- and decision-making is put centre-stage. This implies the focus is on monitoring and assessing opening the process for permanent tuning of the process and report writing is geared along these lines. At the same time, we drive a benign “culture of mistakes”. The underlying understanding of CGM is that mistakes are a vital source for personal and social learning, growth and progress. 35 References - Bar-Yam, Yaneer (1997). Complexity Rising: From Human Beings to Human Civilization, a Complexity Profile. NECSI Report 1997-12-01. - Boal, Augusto (1979 [1974]). Theater of the Opressed. Urizon Books. - Buric, Ivana, Miguel Farias, Jonathan Jong, Christopher Mee, and Inti A Brazil (2017). What Is the Molecular Signature of Mind–Body Interventions? A Systematic Review of Gene Expression Changes Induced by Meditation and Related Practices. In: Front Immunol, June 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00670. - Castellani, Brian (2013). Map of Complexity Science. Cleveland, OH. Courtesy of Arts and Science Factory, LLC. In “9th Iteration (2013): Science Maps Showing Trends and Dynamics,” Places & Spaces: Mapping Science, edited by Katy Börner and Todd N. Theriault. http://scimaps.org. - De Gruy, Joy (2005). Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America's Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing. Uptone Press. - Delucci, Hélène (2012). Course on “Solution-Focused Intervention in Crisis Situations and Basics of Psycho Traumatology” SySt-Institut München. - Erikson, Kai T. (1976). Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Communityh in the Buffalo Creek Flood. New York: Simon & Schuster. - Gros, Claudius (2010). Cognition and Emotion: Perspectives of a Closing Gap. In: Cogn Comput, 2: 78-85. Doi: 10.1007/s12559-010-9034-7. - Lederach, John P (2005). The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Luhmann, Niklas (1995 [1984]). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. - Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco Varela (1987). The Tree of Knowledge. The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala. 36 - McGowan, Patrick O, Aya Sasaki, Ana C D’Alessio, Sergiy Dymov, Benoit Labonté, Moshe Szyf, Gustavo Turecki, and Michael J Meaney (2009). Epigenetic regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor in human brain associates with childhood abuse. In: Nature Neuroscience, 12(3): 342–348. doi:10.1038/nn.2270. - Mitchell, Sandra (2009). Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity and Policy. University of Chicago Press. - North, Douglas C. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic performance. San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth. - Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers (1984). Order out of Chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. Flamingo. - Reimann, Cordula and König, Ursula (forthcoming) Closing the gap & a different perspective on protractedness: Understanding collective and transgenerational trauma in conflict transformation processes. - Ricigliano, Robert (2016). Making Peace Last. A toolbox for sustainable peacebuilding. New York: Routledge. - Radtke, Karl M, Martina Ruf, Helen M Gunter, Katalina Dohrmann, Maggie Schauer, Alex Meyer, and Thomas Elbert (2011). Transgenerational impact of intimate partner violence on methylation in the promoter of the glucocorticoid receptor. In: Translational Psychiatry, 1(7):e21. DOI: 10.1038/tp.2011.21. - Ramo-Fernández, Laura, Anna Schneider, Sarah Wilker, and Iris-Tatjana Kolassa (2015). Epigenetic Alterations associated with War Trauma and Childhood Maltreatment. In: Behav Sci Law, 33(5): 701-721, Oct 11. doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2200. - Scahill, Jeremy, (2014) Dirty Wars, Paperback - Slutkin, Gary (2012). Violence Is a Contagious Disease. From „Contagion of Violence“. Institute of Medicine. Washington: National Academy Press. - World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 27. 37 38 Illustration 9: Countries with lesser complexity seem to be more sustainable in economic terms and in terms of transgenerational justice. Credit: Wikipedia The COBAWU Institute. Complexity is a basic quality of matter in the universe. To our days, humans have been able to deal with the tools they need to find their own place in the universe. Humans have worked on the environment to adapt it for human use. Transforming the environment is an always-complex issue. In fact, it is an expression of complexity itself. Any human action is an expression of complexity. Any political, social, religious, scientific, educational, etc. structure set up by humans can be understood as a complexity expression or a form of complexity governance. To our days, we call the tools used to adapt the environment and human life to each other knowledge. Knowledge allows humans to construct a perspective of the world in which they live. It has helped to understand and deal with the world. However, this knowledge, that gets taught at schools and universities and is currently used in the economy and the construction of politics and all the essential structures that make human life possible, is not sufficient to run human societies in a sustainable fashion. The existing disciplines do not seem to be sufficient to structure societies and legal systems in a way that makes human life happy to the point that single persons can develop their freedom and empathy to a sufficient degree. It seems that individuals compete with the structures and systems they set up themselves. They do not exist in harmony. Therefore, crises are being set up day after day, and sometimes it seems that humanity is in a dead-end. The COBAWU Institute (COmplexity BAlanced World United) was created in year 2010 to fill a gap between existing human techniques to govern complexity and the not existing but necessary tools and techniques for complexity governance. The COBAWU Institute is thought to be among many new research institutes. The overall aim is the construction of a network of “Complexity Observatories, Laboratories and Workshops”. Today, we work on the first Complexity Observatory as a private initiative, founded at the Empathy Museum in the city of Wuppertal, Germany, which is presently being set up as a private-public partnership. 39 The main task assigned to these institutes is to learn to deal with complexity and to introduce complexity-governance-tools into daily life patterns, starting with empathy. Governing and ruling complexity enables Global Civil Society (John Keane) within societies to really work on complexity governance in a professional way, instead of simulating. What is simulating? So far, politics run according to inherited patrons linked to a time in which complexity was not sufficiently abstracted to the necessary extent. Politics are grown from a political context of conflicts that have been solved and fueled again over decades, until Europe was born. Europe is the first region on the planet and in a globalized context, in which democracy has been established among very different cultures based on agreements and not based on the system of violence and wars, thus, at least for some decades. Unfortunately, also Europe as a political construct is hitting the ceiling of what seems possible in our days, and Europe is a fragile construction. Latest crises of refugees and terrorism, as well as growing nepotism, corruption, authoritarianism (as seen in the crises in Catalonia and Spain) only add further evidence to our pledge. Complexity Governance is for this reason the focus of research of the COBAWU Institute. We coordinate and initiate a series of research panels that describe and optimize complexity governance in all issues relevant for social construction, be it politics, economy, health, education or communication. We work in a transdisciplinary fashion and tasks are shared among different institutes and institutions. Beyond practical research done for specific purposes for public administrations, we accomplish university bound research to explore the limits of complexity within human organization. Doing so, only critical masses of complexity will be relevant. Identifying which are those critical masses is the most challenging endeavor that has been identified so far. What it comes down to is the need to set up efficient systems of complexity governance that lead from the present complexity chaos to a sustainable complexity architecture. This is necessary to maintain and generate a livable society and not a violent society that is at the permanent risk of self-destruction. 40 Understanding complexity leads to a different comprehension of all human activity. Understanding human actions as an expression of complexity allows a reset of value systems according to a human governance of complexity growth and orientation, instead of enduring the chaotic and exponential growth of complexity alternating with the system of violence. All in all, we are based on and in empathy. 41 core, consultancy & training in conflict transformation. Mission statement: “I thrive on making individual and social change possible – be it in people, NGOs, governmental agencies or projects and programs. With a solutions-oriented focus, deep interest in psychology and spirituality, and a sense of humor for the tragedies and complexities of life, I embrace and truly believe in analytical openness and out-of-box thinking to appreciate different perspectives to a complex problem and conflict. I am convinced that forms of genuine and strategic cooperation make our work more sustainable, successful, credible and more fun. With a mover and shaker personality, I believe in and deeply enjoy facilitating groups’ dynamics to make a bigger and smaller change possible.” Cordula Reimann Key qualifications: Training & Teaching: Experienced university lecturer in International Relations conflict and peace studies. Experienced and certified trainer in the area of gender & conflict, development and peacebuilding, conflict sensitivity (“Do no Harm”), human rights, trauma work/transgenerational trauma, conflict analysis and effective peacebuilding (“Reflecting on Peace Practice”), intercultural communication; experienced trainer of trainers (ToT), elaboration of training programmes and materials. Consultancy & Coaching: Strong and diverse experiences in PME/strategy development, organizational development, evaluations and impact assessments for different NGOs and governmental institutions in the area of peace-building, human rights, gender and conflict-sensitivity (like for UN Women, Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs, Dfid, GIZ, Oxfam, Nonviolent Peace Force, CARITAS, Bread for the World, and CDA Collaborative Learning Projects). Facilitation & Mediation: Trained mediator. Experienced facilitator of large and small group discussions, seminars and workshops, and trained mediator. Experienced in NLP, “Storytelling, “Dragon Dreaming”, “Theatre of the Oppressed/of the Living”, “Open Space” and “World Café” methodologies. 42 Knowledge of strategy methodologies and research in gender, development & peacebuilding Strong analytical skills; up-to-date with the international debate on conflict analysis, systems thinking, trauma work/transgenerational trauma, conflict transformation, conflict-sensitivity, gender, conflict, development and peacebuilding, and impact assessment and PME methodologies. Strong record of publications on gender, peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Field experiences: Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Bangladesh/Chittagong Hill Tracks, Cambodia, India, Kenya, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Nepal, Afghanistan, Columbia, North Iraq, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Philippines/Mindanao, Bosnia, Kosovo, Caucasus, Kyrgyzstan, Burundi, Sudan, Liberia, Ghana and Sierra Leone. 43 Contact: Dr. Cordula Reimann – [email protected] (www.corechange.ch und www.corechange-coaching.ch ). Prof. Dr. Karolin Eva Kappler – [email protected] - +49 16096926332 Ass.-Prof. Andreu Ginestet – [email protected] – +49 171 1408703 Address: Gartenstrasse 8, 42107 Wuppertal, Deutschland 44 45 #complexity #trauma prevention #forcedmigrationasweaponofwar #future #refugees #war #massmigration #complexitydesign #system of violence #empathy #epigenetics