Mapping Transformational Change Agents in Europe: Who do we Include?

Life Itself are currently mapping a growing field of ‘transformational’ societal change organisations in Europe. This work is part of Cohere+, an educational field-building project co-funded by Erasmus+, which we’re undertaking in partnership with The Hague Center, the Institute for Integral Studies, Emerge, and the Ekskäret Foundation.

We will be producing a map of 300+ organisations, which will consist of a searchable directory of organisation profiles and accompanying visualisations to make sense of key patterns.

We recently came up with the criteria below to determine which actors should be included or not in the map. We invite readers to share your thoughts, questions, or critiques of these criteria so that we can learn from the field and improve together. We’re also glad to hear suggestions of organisations that you find innovative or inspiring that you think fit within this field. You can find our contact details here (via email is the best way).

Inclusion Criteria

Criteria 1: Is it a societal change organisation?

The organisation is composed of a group of people who together are demonstrably and actively engaged in societal change work guided by plausible strategy.

Criteria 2: Are they actively based in and/or actively present in Europe?

The organisation has active presence in European countries. For example, they offer in-person or online activities or events in one or more European countries and/or they have hubs/bases/centers in one or more European countries. A formal registration as a legal organization is not necessarily required.

Criteria 3: Are they working towards paradigmatic societal change?

The organisation talks about the need for far-reaching and radical (to the roots) societal change, transformation, or evolution. The organisation talks about the need for alternative societal model(s) or paradigm(s) or culture(s). Or, the organisation demonstrates some strategic systemic awareness, for example, they don't just talk about developing a new culture without some awareness of how that is relates to broader societal change or addressing broader social and ecological issues.

Criteria 4: Are they taking a whole-systems/ integrated approach?

The organisation demonstrates awareness of the need for society to shift at multiple systemic levels. For example, they demonstrate awareness of the need for integration of inner, interpersonal, and systemic work. Or, they demonstrate awareness of the need for other forms of consciousness/knowledge/relating to self and others/cultural practices.

We developed these criteria by building on our previous ecosystem mapping work, which identified and articulated a radical, alternative approach to social change that is simultaneously ‘paradigmatic, integrated and engaged’. That framing came out of conversations and interviews with various actors in the ecosystem we see emerging and now gathering strength, including some actors who were also engaged in similar mapping efforts. 

These current criteria also integrate the requirements of this particular project, which is co-funded by the European Union, by focusing on organisations who are active in Europe and by taking into account a mapping needs analysis conducted earlier on in the project that explores what needs this map intends to serve both within the project and beyond. 

A small sample of some of the organisations we’ve identified so far that we think fit these criteria includes: 

• Notre Affaire à Tous

• Presencing Institute

• Ecodharma

• Institute for Global Integral Competence

• Ashoka

• Office for the Future

• Oikos International

• Faculty for a Future

• Transition Network

• Pocket Project

• RadicalxChange

• Open Future Coalition

• Isha Foundation

• ProSocial World

• Centre for Systems Awareness

Do you agree with our evaluations of these organisations? Are there others you’d recommend we include? 

Some questions that come to mind for us on the issue of selecting which organisations to be in the map include:

• How can we discern between organisations who are merely talking about transformational change and those who are really doing it? How can we best find those organisations who are really embodying the kinds of paradigmatic transformation they are talking about?

• What language do we want to use to refer to the field? In this post, we have used the term ‘transformational change’. There are many other possible terms we could use, including: ‘second renaissance’, ‘metamodern’, ‘integral’, ‘inner-led change’ and more. 

• How can we address bias in selecting which organisations to include in the map? What is a reasonable level of bias to accept and where can we do better?

• How can we ensure we map organisations from regions of Europe that tend to be less represented, e.g. southern Europe and eastern Europe?

We welcome your suggestions, reactions, and questions on all that we have shared here. Get in touch with us here. We look forward to engaging in conversation with you and sharing future updates on our progress.