It is over 11 years since Headstreams began. All through, the consistent desire has been to discover/innovate ways to enable participants to live meaningful lives. Facilitating the realization of their inherent potential to do this, has been the thread that runs through all our work – be it related to education, livelihoods or community development.

We are currently exploring how the practice of “Habits of Mind (HoM)” can best be introduced among children and youth. We enable this by providing safe facilitated learning environments underpinned by free choice and goal-setting paradigms.Our belief is that this can leverage capacities for problem solving, self-awareness and empathy. Constant systematic reflection is part of the process, and this is already yielding valuable affirmations, insights and challenges for us as facilitators.

Recently, while conducting a HoM session on the habit of “Persistence” in a Home for Boys (who had had a brush with the law), one of them asked, “What if we use our persistence to pursue illegal things?”

Later, discussing as a team, we were grateful that the boy was able to voice his thoughts, given the safe space that had been created for the children to freely share. We also realized that by sharing his thoughts,this boy was inviting us into a dialogue regarding a matter that was deeply personal and troubling for him. The sub-text of this question was a challenge: “Do you have anything meaningful to say/offer which can make me alter my thinking (or do you affirm it)?”

As part of that team discussion, we developed an ethical framework which could help anyone evaluate their choices or actions:
1) Will my action harm me today or in the long run (physically, mentally, emotionally,
socially, spiritually)?
2) Will my action harm others today or in the long run (on the same parameters)?
3) Would it make me proud if my child (or a loved one) made the same choices?
If the answer to any of these three was a NO, then it implied the need to rethink that choice or action.

Also important was that, while facilitating this ethical framework, one needs to remember that the realities of the participants are often highly complex and sometimes heart-breaking. As facilitators, an attitude of empathy and mercy is always preferred to one of passing ethical judgement. The challenge for us is to attempt holding on to our truth while empathetically dialoguing at the starting points that are offered.

It becomes crucial then that, as facilitators, we are able to read the sub-text of what is being said, to locate root concerns: safety, protection of loved ones, despair, etc. This helps to keep the conversation addressed to these concerns as the reference point,so that the dialogue does not degenerate into a “…but this is wrong and that is right” kind of framework. For example, if doing something illegal was the only way a child could think of, of helping one’s family, we could begin by recognising the desire to help, and commending the initiative to act for someone apart from themselves, before focusing on what other ways there may be to help one’s family. The dialogue would then become a starting point in identifying alternate ways to achieve one’s higher goals.

We would love to hear your thoughts and perspectives on this discussion, and also if you have any experiences to share on this topic. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Dr Naveen I. Thomas & Selena George
Co-Founders