A line of flight presents new possibilities but with risks because the line of flight is unpredictable and “the line of flight … creates or turns into a line of destruction”

– Connecting in Rhizomic Spaces: PAL & E-Learning in Teacher Education

… it is probably a good thing, evolutionarily speaking, to generate diversity in each generation. If the environment changes, you’ll be ready to react.

– The Journey of Man, A Genetic Odyssey

In 1996, Young and Dangerous was released in Hong Kong. 1996 also happens to be the year the Pew Research Centre decided to mark as the year separating Generation Z from millennials. How long a generation lasts is not fixed and depends on distinct changes in, among other things, “key political, economic and social factors” (Dimock, 2019).

Generation Z, born 1997 and after, it has been reported, are not satisfied with status quo and appear to be more proactive than other generations to take action in an activist sort of way.

Forward thinking education systems around the world had begun some time ago, to adopt a markedly different philosophy, better suited for the times. The current thinking in education calls for a constructivist, student centric approach. This means students, including those in primary school, are regularly engaged on global themes such as rising perceptions of inequality and climate change. This will energise civic consciousness and increase levels of participation.

‘Activism’ evokes images of placards, massive gatherings and a host of anti-establishment practices. This is not surprising given how video footage of protests around the world for one reason or another often fills television or handphone screens. Rightly or wrongly, activism has been associated with rebellion and costly disruption.

One example which cements this view is Greenpeace, “a global network of independent national and regional Greenpeace organisations (NROs)”, which on its website states, it uses, “non-violent creative action to pave the way towards a greener, more peaceful world”. It also states, it aims to “dismantle the broken systems and global power structures that have failed us”. Elsewhere, the organisation has been described as using, “sensational” and “bold” tactics to get attention (Dowdey, How Stuff Works).

These sensational and bold tactics include, making a 20m long plastic monster and marching with it to Nestle’s headquarters with 60 activists to protest plastic pollution which the organisation allegedly contributes to (Graham Forbes, 2019).

Would Generation Z take to this brand of advocacy like a duck to water? Interestingly, despite familiarity and skill with voice bestowing media, the Pew Research Centre suggests that Gen Z in America, is more pro-government than previous generations (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). This view is echoed by The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020, which found, “a majority of respondents gave businesses and governments high marks for their pandemic responses”. The Deloitte report was based on two surveys and included views of millennials across 43 countries and Gen Z in 20 countries.

Is there a contradiction between dissatisfaction with the status quo and satisfaction with institutions which organisations like Greenpeace pin blame on? Without commenting on its truth or lack thereof, it is perhaps apposite to cite a maxim of Objectivist philosophy which proposes there are no contradictions. When something seems like a contradiction to Objectivists, it is usually resolved by correcting a premise.

An adversarial and strident approach to advocacy and dispute resolution assumes institutions must be compelled to concede. This view gives rise to lawsuits and demonstrations both, time consuming, costly and wanting in efficiency.

Understanding this, there has been a shift around the world towards more collaborative processes to help parties “bring their disagreements to an acceptable conclusion” (Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2020).These include, mediation, arbitration and conflict avoidance boards.

Generation Z tends to support companies with sustainable and inclusive practices (Agrawal, 2017). Commercial entities are mindful of this and are increasingly factoring environmental, social and governance responsibility considerations in their policies and capex (PwC, 2012). This also means they are open to dialogue with stakeholders.

Institutions may require not compelling but convincing. When and where there has been a strong case for change, they have on the whole taken a pragmatic approach and evolved their practices as the Deloitte report suggests.

Students then have to learn how to be convincing when making their voices heard. In a study on how environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGO) in Norway engage policymakers, it was recorded that “expertise” which is “not being wrong – being precise – is mandatory for being allowed to enter to the table [of policy exchanges]” (Unander & Sorenson, 2020). Arguments must go beyond being merely emotive, demonstrating also, logical and evidential appeal.

While general propositions such as, The planet must be taken care of and People should be treated fairly are uncontroversial and would find ready agreement with institutions, complications arise because every dispute is based on a unique factual matrix. While hardliners might be opposed to a particular class of projects as a matter of principle, every project or decision is different and has to be analysed on that basis.

This means building a case to persuade the entity concerned to take a different course of action would require fresh acquisition of facts, often from varying disciplines. Unander and Sorensen (2020) cite an activist they interviewed: “I’ve got a list of things I wish I could read up on, kind of, but I very rarely find the time to do so. So, the result is that I do it [read up] whenever I need to… sometimes you need to send out a press release within an hour and have to collect the [required] knowledge”.

This suggests that oftentimes, information has to be sourced, filtered, sequenced, and otherwise presented in a cohesive and coherent manner under a tight timeline. This will apply not only to activists but also employees. Bughin et al. (2018) in a paper on the future of work, suggest, “agile ways of working will be a high-priority organisational change” and that agile organisations would consist of “a network of teams” “notable for rapid learning and fast decision cycles”.

It might be overwhelming to be expected to produce a report or press release within a short time, a day for instance. One way to do this is through what has been termed as rhizomic learning. A rhizome is “a plant stem which sends out roots and shoots from its nodes” in a seemingly haphazard fashion.

This is basically to begin with exploration without any predetermined path in mind and to rely on lucky coincidences to construct knowledge. It has the following features (Unander & Sorenson, 2020):

a) Diversity of sources
b) Unsystematic – comprises lines of flight
c) Opacity in acquiring and assembling knowledge – no predetermined path
d) Requires Networking
e) Needs interpretation, synthesis and translation to problem context

Let us say one was to produce a report, making recommendations whether to allow keeping hawks as pets and knew nothing of the bird of prey. Rhizomic learning could take the following form. It might begin with a keyword search on an internet search engine without knowing where this would lead. This is opacity.

Every page landing might feature some keyword or concept which might evoke curiosity or be of some relevance. A new term which catches the eye may not be, on the face of it, directly related to hawks but may be of some relevance in a larger context. Each such term and the subsequent search would comprise what has been termed a line of flight.

A line of flight allows escape from the strict confines of a subject or discipline. For instance, the one researching hawks may have been perusing a scientific journal and found an author making a passing reference to a memoir, the kind usually found in the literature section of bookshops. Or he may have simply typed in ‘Hawks’ and retrieved entries related to basketball or cosplay.

While not all of these would in the end have been equally or even at all useful in the final report, the value in a line of flight and diversity of sources is that you never know what you might find. The memoir for instance might help the researcher visualise abstract scientific jargon or prose and help him construct his report in a more accessible way.

The researcher might also have to make calls to others who have relevant experience or whose input might be relevant, even if such others are not subject matter experts on hawks. One such group could be a club for owners of pets which look threatening. The researcher could ask if such pets create anxiety among neighbours.

The final step of the rhizomic process is to translate the views and data gleaned from diverse disciplines and sources to the problem context into a format which would be appreciated by decision makers.

The process has been described to be highly effective and one interviewee in the Unander and Sorenson (2020) study expressed delight at “how much good information” “just keeps falling into our laps”.

A quote attributed to Bruce Lee goes, “Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it”.

Emulating water can be dangerous or rapturous. It depends on if one thinks about cyclones which swirl from divergence or tributaries which flow towards the confluence.

The Brain Dojo