I spent a lot of time thinking over the weekend.
There were moments for leisure, birdwatching, a family meal and film, and for working out how the gear chain on a model locomotive might be improved, but I admit that quantum biology and a question that PSR posed on this blog, when he asked not why I do things, but how do I approach my work, all made me think quite a lot.
There is no quantum essay this morning. Nor is there an essay in any other series. I did not get around to preparing one. Please accept my apologies. But the question of how I approach my work is one worth addressing.
Some years ago - and I cannot recall how many now - I became familiar with the idea of solution-focused thinking, which is in turn related to solution-focused therapy. It has pervaded much of my work since then, creating a difference in approach that I think is important.
As we all know, there is a tendency in politics, economics and the media to focus on problems rather than on solutions. We are repeatedly told what is wrong, who is to blame, and how bad things might become, but what we are very rarely told is how they might be made better. To me, that failure matters, not least because the simple act of repeating stories of failure appears to deliberately condition us to believe that things cannot be changed.
Solution-focused thinking challenges this assumption. It does three things:
- It asks us to imagine what the world would be like if a problem were solved, assuming in the process that this is always a possibility that is within our reach, which I think is fundamentally important.
- It asks us to identify the impediments to achieving that goal.
- It requires that we imagine how those impediments could be removed.
In other words, solution-focused thinking starts from the idea that the future is not predetermined. It assumes that we can act to improve outcomes. This first, and fundamental element to it, differentiates it from the fatalism that underpins so much contemporary policy discourse. If we think nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. That is where most cowardly politicians (as I call them) are on most issues, and I think they are wrong.
Second, thinking about solutions shifts attention. To be solution-focused demands curiosity about what might be rather than constantly seeking to apportion blame. That difference requires that we use imagination and means that politics must be a creative act rather than a punitive one.
Third, solution-focused thinking is profoundly pragmatic, which appeals to me. It does not require perfection. It asks, instead, what works, and for whom. The point is not to design an ideal world, but to take steps that move us toward one whilst recognising that the ideal might never be reached, not least because one person's idea of utopia might be another person's hell, and so compromises are inevitably going to be necessary *. That is why solution-focused thinking sits uneasily with ideology: it values what delivers over what sounds right, in the process rejecting much of the nitpicking pedantry that has so undermined left-of-centre politics for so long and prevented so much happening.
Fourth, such thinking necessarily demands inclusion. Solutions cannot emerge from within closed systems that protect the status quo. They require engagement with those who experience problems directly, whether those problems be poverty, underfunded public services, or environmental crises. Listening to those affected is not an option: it is essential if solutions are to be found. Solution-focused thinking is not done to people; it is done by people. This is why so many of our institutions of power - from politics and the Bank of England onwards - need to be radically changed so that the exclusion that characterises them now is eliminated.
Fifth, and perhaps most important, solution-focused thinking changes the politics of possibility. It builds confidence that interventions can work. When people see positive change, even in small increments, the cynicism that feeds authoritarianism begins to ebb. Despair is replaced by participation.
The consequences are profound.
In economic policy, it means refusing to accept austerity as inevitable and instead designing systems that use the state's fiscal capacity to achieve full employment and social well-being.
In taxation, it means designing structures that close loopholes, reduce inequality, and promote the care economy rather than lamenting the tax system's failure as unchangeable.
In climate policy, it means moving from targets to transformation; from describing the problem to implementing the transition.
That is why I believe in solution-focused thinking. It is radical. It insists that we can build the world we want rather than merely describe the one we have. It challenges neoliberal fatalism, managerial passivity, and the endless invocation of “there is no alternative.” There always is, if we are prepared to look for it. And what it shows is that the real barrier to progress is not a lack of resources, knowledge, or imagination. It is a lack of will. Solution-focused thinking restores that will. It reclaims politics as a practical, hopeful endeavour. It reminds us that problems are not causes for despair. They are invitations to act.
Notes
* An afterthought links this idea to the quantum series and recognises that the second law of thermodynamics means that perfection is never going to be sustainable, and so is a pointless goal.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The rich are “solutions focussed” the problem being they fail to recognise that market capitalism is not 100% beneficial to all because it has an adversative side. This state of reasoning denial results in them sponsoring a politics of distraction which is heavily centred on finding scapegoats other than themselves. All creatures have in-built “forward thinking” technically it’s called biological teleosemantics or biosemantics. Getting “the many” to understand they have this natural in-built capacity should be a major emphasis for progressives because it can be used to get them to ask for workable solutions from politicians not just ad hominem attacks.
Ad hominem:-
“A logical fallacy where someone refutes an argument by attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making it, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”
You can’t be solution focused if you do not ask people about outcomes.
The rich don’t.
I re-watched a film about Hannah Arendt yesterday.
She initially saw evil as radical, but the more she accepted that evil was sort of everywhere and part of us and is often enabled through ‘unthinking’ (as she saw Eichmann), I think the more she came to understand that thinking, compassion and kindness were the REAL radical behaviours that humans were capable of and that we needed to consciously embrace those to avert sliding into barbarism.
I also watched an Adam Curtis film – The Living Dead – in which an ex-member of the Baader-Mienhof gang was interviewed who admitted that their approach to anti-fascism was a fascist one – an intolerance of the ‘other’ and a wish to eliminate them. His conclusion was that there is a fascist in all of us that must be confronted. I think he is right.
Thinking about solutions then is deeply radical – it rejects the mental cages put around us by self interest and the comforts of others.
Which Arendt film, PSR?
‘Hannah Arendt’ is on Amazon video. I bought it to watch there.
I hadn’t heard of it until it popped up on an AI generated recommendation. This is not a Hollywood film, right?! There a very few – if any – big time actors, but it is very well one.
What is good about the film is that ideas and observations speak through the dialogue, but you have to listen. The only downside is that there is a lot of smoking in the film – typical I suppose of that period. The overall theme is that seeking to understand evil, will help us to combat it.
I think she was very brave and she was right. And her real life was full of human contradictions of course. As with most history, being a woman means that she does not get the credit she deserves.
Thank you. I suspect we will watch it.
PSR I too would like to know the title of the film on Arendt please. Read a good book about her, would like to know more.
Interesting thought about the ‘fascist inside’, some call this part of the shadow self. Yanis Varoufakis made a similar comment – I don’t need to agree with all he has to say to find some of it thoughtful.
If correct, most of us would not want to see it, find it abhorrent. And we do need to talk, with people who hold views abhorrent to us. Might a fascist have a little inclusive leftie inside? Or a very militant Bader-Meinhoff-incline d one? This is intriguing. Any psychologists among the readers of this blog?
There is DEFINITELY a “fascist inside” of me.
He wants to see certain people put up against a wall and shot – or at least, put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit and veg.
I have a theological explanation for his existence, and a theological remedy that so far, is working, to keep him chained up (well, during the daytime at least). Yours, Mr Hyde.
Your excellent discussion of “solutions” brought two thoughts to the surface for me.
1. Whatever happened to prisons minister Timpson?
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state–147 – one of Starmer’s more interesting appointments, a man with experience of solutions-focussed thinking and more important, practice, in his business life. (Disclosure – I’m a satisfied customer, shoe repairs, watch repairs, key cutting).
2. I’ve been listening to intelligent solution-focussed discussions about prison reform, in particular rehabilitation, restorative justice, and effective non-custodial sentencing since I was a student in the 70’s over half a century ago. These described solutions, well thought through, well implemented, ample evidence that they worked, to the benefit of the whole of society, not just the offenders, with details of successful trial schemes, yet these effective SOLUTIONS were never expanded into the mainstream. Why? Because the senior politicians lacked the moral courage and ability to see through the changes (no matter what the Daily Mail said).
A current example:
https://insidetime.org/newsround/restorative-justice-thwarted-by-hmpps/
I just share this as an example where solution-focussed discussions, even with irrefutable evidence of success, doesn’t seem to result in change. Maybe call it the Elizabeth Fry question (she DID seem to be able to effect change)?
I am sure there are many of us who have been or are still beavering away putting solutions into practice who get discouraged, or worse, cynical, when solutions that work, that CAN be implemented, that WOULD make the world a better place, are ignored by government, for spurious or even devious reasons.
I’ve never been involved in prison work, but am involved in 3 small supported housing projects – another solution that WORKS but governments lack the courage to support on a large scale, again, for fear of the Daily Mail, who seem to WANT high crime, recidivism and street homelessness so they can rant about it.
Thanks
Never come across it described that way. It’s given me more clarity and a name for it. Thank you.
I like your explanation of solution-focussed thinking. Pragmatism is often put down as lacking a moral lodestone when clearly that is illogical, and that is incredibly frustrating. I saw the harm and inertia perfectionism can lead to early, and tried to school myself away from it.
Congratulations on being a solutions-focussed thinker fuelled by a desire for a more just and fair society, and the persistence to stick at the tax haven work, getting the country-by-country reporting adopted. Thank goodness you tell us about it; we hear far too much about problems and made-up problems (like the national debt being disasterous).
Thanks
I didn’t realise there was any other way to think.
Well, not quite true. After 20 years of marriage I eventually realised that sometimes people need to have a moan without anyone telling us how to solve the issue. The following 10 years have been easier as a result of that epiphany!
I will say nothing
I was trying and failing to rewrite the song
‘It aint what you do but the way that you do it……’
BUT as a thought exercise I cam up with
‘What would a penal system that worked in the best interests of offenders look like? and taking it as read that it isn’t in anyone’s best interests too be an offender’
Answers on the back of a postcard please…..
I’m tired of books and articles that diagnose problems but offer no way forward. That’s why I value this blog. Pairing solution focused thinking with pragmatism, and grounding both in phenomenology’s attention to lived experience, points to real fixes. If ordinary people who live the consequences of top down decisions imposed on them had real seats on boards at the BoE, banks, corporations, and public bodies, those decisions would be harder to justify and far more likely to serve the majority, not just the few at the top.
I also hate such books.
I am looking at you Joe Stiglitz, and many others.
Apropos of interesting films/tv, people who read this blog might like this 1970’s seried from J K Galbraith:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002l6sc/the-age-of-uncertainty
Very funny in parts in a very dry way. And surprisingly relevant.
Would they ever do such a thing again I wonder?
I remember it from when it was first out!