Disengagement

It has been quite some time since I’m feeling something doesn’t resonate with me about the whole environment of the Inner Development Goals (IDGs), but only recently have I managed to put more clarity regarding what bothers me.

It is not the HOW that bothers me, it is the WHY that contradicts the whole concept.

But before going there, I feel necessary to mention what is important for me around the IDGs.

I deeply believe inner development is a vital part of us, human beings, to become more aware of our potential and boost it. It serves us to become more humane.

In that line of ideas, I think the IDG Framework gives an important narrative to enhance the practice of introspective journeys where we pause to reflect, think, and then bounce back feeling stronger and readier to face our day-to-day life.

All those introspective processes would make us better persons and help us make more meaningful contributions to our environments (work, family, society, planet, etc.).

The goal behind this is simple: Better being. Better doing.

Several tools, ideas, and paths exist for doing these reflective journeys. The IDGs framework is one of them, but it is not THE tool.

For some people, this framework resonates a lot, for other people not at all. That is the reason why I always have at hand different narratives that I can use to motivate such introspective processes with the people I’m working with.

During these circa 12 months that I have been involved and engaged with the global movement around the IDGs, I observed some things such as the age group of the majority (mid-age) and the scarce diversity among the participants in the online meetings.

The lack of youth and diversity (religion, origin, socio-economic status, etc.) bothers me. A lot.

I know this can be improved. It is possible to make the movement more inclusive and less Western, mid-age initiative.

There are also a lot of egos involved, especially in the way practitioners portray themselves and the job they do around the IDGs. It feels overwhelming to read some of the articles and reflections (or shall I call it “marketing”?) full of ego-centric words that somehow sound contradictory to humility, one of the skills included in the IDG framework.

These sensations and feelings I have are not a huge obstacle to my participation and involvement with the IDGs movement because it invite me to co-create with people who think and act differently than me.

And, it is also coherent with my necessity to be part of groups and initiatives where I am not surrounded by mind-liked people, but a wider spectrum of thinking and acting.

Despite all these feelings I decided to keep my level of commitment and engagement with the IDGs movement because I see opportunities for using this framework for inner development and sparking a transformative path for better futures.

In the last two months, however, I experienced some situations that made me realize how the WHY of the IDGs movement no longer feels compatible with what I believe, and what I stand for.

The first one was the images of the IDGs “core team” having a “retreat” on a private island somewhere in a Nordic country to decide the route ahead for the movement.

Nothing per se is wrong with this, except the intense sensation of witnessing a bunch of wealthy, privileged, mostly white-western people deciding the strategic path for the years to come for this global initiative.

I felt, and still feel, that the lack of inclusive mentality and actions are not according to what I see and believe the IDGs are about: helping people to pause and be more humane, but concerning the specificities of our realities (culture, social, etc.) and not only from a northern, white, privileged and wealthy perspective. I feel this is an incompatibility between the WHY (intention/aspiration) of the IDGs and the HOW.

I was trying to see how I could balance or rebel against this dynamic, thinking that I may need to create a hub for ‘disgruntled’ practitioners with people feeling not included, not represented, or that the movement is not inclusive enough. Then I read a document that lays down the structure the IDG ‘core team’ has designed as a road map for the movement to grow.

This one, even if they said it was still a draft version, tore apart the last enthusiasm I had to keep involved with the activities aiming to develop the movement further.

The proposed structure feels like a new way of colonialism, telling people in other latitudes and realities what should be the route to follow if one wants to reach levels of inner development to come closer to a more sustainable future (related to the SDGs).

Having a goal such as the creation of an “IDGs Ministry” in any country, but especially in developing nations, can’t be the vision (or goal) of such a deep, personal, and introspective experience that is to become better in being humane.

I’m asking myself how can I be part of such an initiative.

How can I contribute to building a movement that aims to install their beliefs (the framework) in each country?

Is it a movement? a cult? a sect? a dogma? or an ideology?

What’s the next step? to divide people among the believers (of the IDG framework) and the non?

To radicalize the path?

I say NO.

No, thanks.

I can’t keep contributing to building this movement with this frame.

It is not the HOW that bothers me, it is the WHY that contradicts the whole concept.

I aim for congruence between who I am, what my values are, and what I stand for.

My inner development journey has taken me to deconstruct, unlearn, and challenge patterns and behaviors acquired in my culture, the society where I grew up, and all the beliefs implanted in me over the years.

This is the clearest I am thinking about at this moment. And I have therefore decided to stop my involvement with the IDGs movement.

I may use the narrative of the framework which I find clear and inspiring for people who want to pause and go on introspective journeys because the skills included there are important for any person looking for inner development.

But I will not ‘preach’ or promote the IDGs framework further and for sure I won't contribute to building this movement that, for me, has a strong smell of neo-colonialism.

This frees up important energy for me to keep myself congruent with my transformation journey where I decided to contribute to creating better futures not perpetuating unfair, exclusive, non-tolerant, privileged, binary, patriarchal, colonial, white, and wealthy dynamics.

I can’t keep contributing to building this movement with this frame. It is not the HOW that bothers me, it is the WHY that contradicts the whole concept.