Working (and for more and more Europeans also living) in multi-faceted realities has become the rule rather than the exception. A terminological confusion of Babylonian dimension is prevailing when we are trying to define those realities. We talk about multiculturalism, live in multi-ethnic societies, work in multi-lingual settings and seek solutions to local problems through cross-border, regional cooperation. We have developed a catalogue of things we call values, which seem to be accepted, at least within our bubble. And in order to uphold these values, most of us agree that we need to avoid stereotypes, especially when it comes to our beneficiaries, clients, partners, counterparts, etc. But is this the right way? And even more relevantly: is this at all possible and necessary?

Among the many aspects that could be discussed relating to the emergence of stereotypes, their different functions and results of their application, one has been particularly interesting to me when dealing with the so-called Balkans: stereotypes have the power to induce self-fulfilling prophecies. Stereotypical expectations can prompt a person or a group to act in ways consistent to the stereotype, thus apparently validating it.

I will spare you now a litany about historic, geo-political, economic, cultural, developmental, and mass-psychological reasons that helped creating mentalities, those “prisons de longue durée”, as Fernand Braudel called them. I will also spare you the invocation of Richard Dawkins and an attempt to explain mentality as the result of memetic exchange among people or groups of people within a given context. If we deconstruct societies and their ways of communication far enough, we see that stereotypes probably persist because they have strong memetic qualities, i.e. they are easily transmitted within a specific cultural context. They are hence part of the “cultural software” (Jack Balkin) of that given context.

Photo: www.procurious.com

I am convinced that neither I as an individual nor we as an imagined community can destroy stereotypes altogether. We need to see how they work and counter their effect. And because the space for this blog is not unlimited, I will limit myself to one example: stereotypes as an excuse to underperform.

In countless situations I have encountered, people would react the same way to honest and constructive criticism, or to appeals to implement recommendations they created themselves: “This is the [insert name of continent, region, country or even more local context], what do you expect? Nothing works here. And who is to blame? All of us!”

A fake analysis combined with dodging responsibility by assigning it to the entire group – what a perfect guarantee that no reform will be implemented, and what a perfect excuse delivered by a stereotype.

How to break that logic? I always try and give an example of a situation with similar starting conditions. The reasons why development differs are usually to be found in political and electoral decisions, followed by a myriad of policy decisions.

The next thing to do, is to break down the sometimes overwhelming reform package into single steps that can be translated into realistic, conceivable goals. I never start with the easy ones; I leave those for a reward moment. And usually, nobody talks about the “bigger picture” for a while, but about goals, deliverables and implementation steps. Of course, the challenge returns when things are too slow or don’t fit together as they should. That is the told-you-so moment, when stereotypes resurface, and where it takes knowledge of the stereotypes and a lot of creativity to counter them. And this cycle continues endlessly.

In brief, what I am trying to say is that it is probably better to invest in knowing the stereotypes of the group(s) you are working with, than to try and avoid using them at any cost. Using management techniques will get you some part of the way. But there is one factor that I admit continues to be the single most difficult challenge: the relentless resistance of administrative structures against any kind of change. This might be a stereotype, but it is very much true at the same time.

How to deal with that one? There is an idealistic answer, and there is a realistic one. Of course, one can always apply fatalism – nothing can be done about that. But we want to exclude that one, don’t we?

Were I to be an idealist, I’d say this is a matter of capacity, visionary leadership, and funding. One could train people long enough and often enough to achieve results. One could train politicians and civil society to develop vision and eventually become accountable – both to their respective oversight institutions and to the citizens in the broadest sense.

But realistically, this schoolbook approach to democratic governance is just not enough. Capacity building from the outside is often too erratic and short-term to make a difference. Often the realities of power distribution are such, that people will go back from a seminar and continue with old habits because they feel there isn’t any space for change.

What I consider to be realistic is a forward-oriented, systemic approach, in addition to traditional capacity and leadership building schemes. The key in trying to make institutions work is accountability. Pressure from within and from the citizens will make institutions first uncomfortable and force them to move eventually. But it is people who change things, and for this change to happen within institutions, there is need for champions, for people who see the need, act according to the need and will stand behind the changes, regardless of political pressure. There is need to invest in two things here: ensuring that there is an enabling and safe environment for these champions to act, and ensuring that they have not only the will to act, but also the expertise to do so in a meaningful way.

So-called next generation governance approaches deliver a variety of tools to the hands of institutions, the private sector, and citizens. The increased availability of big data and of instruments to measure, read and interpret it has already given birth to a new generation of data-based, inclusive policy-making, real time monitoring and evaluation, but also advocacy.

Therein lies the chance to overcome traditional, ethnic and linguistic stereotype-based obstacles to development: data does not discriminate. Just to stick to one example: air pollution is affecting everybody. Institutions already take into account data provided by public and private sources; they will have to find local and specific solutions in dialogue with the affected citizens and according to their needs. On the other hand, citizens already have access to sufficient data to advocate for their issues very concretely. And solutions will only function if the private sector is involved in a meaningful way.

The effect is that more and more advocacy groups are emerging, which practice what I mentioned in the beginning: they live in multi-ethnic societies, work in multi-lingual settings and seek solutions to local problems through cross-border, regional cooperation. And they are strong at one thing: they use data very creatively to underline their demands.

It is these single-issue advocacy groups that will break the spell of stereotypes, that will continue to write the “cultural software” of their region, that have the potential to develop cultural memes just strong enough to counter traditional stereotypes. Together with responsive institutions focusing on the real needs of citizens, they are already laying the foundation to forming the multipolar leadership that societies need in a time, when the trust in traditional institutions and political parties is plummeting. We must learn how to interact with them, how to come up with new ways of support without patronising them, and how to learn from their pragmatic, post-ideologic and certainly post-clientelist thinking. And all this without losing the focus on institutional, champion-driven change.