CHAPTER 1. Disruption in three forms

Disruption is a complex idea that can be broken down into different modes. Chapter One provides a subject review of disruption, highlighting how disruptive features have been borrowed and manifested in three ideas: as mindsets, systems theories and methodologies.

1.1 Disruption as a Mindset Model

We begin by exploring the idea of disruptive design as a form of a mindset, defined as “a pattern of thinking” or “a person’s way of thinking and their opinions” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Similar mindsets can be shared amongst groups of people, and these comprise of the beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that form a basis for our behaviours and philosophies towards life (Cherry, 2020). Leadership strategist and thinker, James Brett, contextualises disruptive mindsets in a cognitive approach. In the “Disruptive Mindset Model” (Fig 2), he explains that our brains are run by multitudes of ‘meta-programs’, commonly known as personality traits, where he identifies only seven meta-programs directly accounting to a ‘disruptive mindset’ (Medium, 2018). To be succinct, only the meta-programs most relevant to social change will be introduced: ‘Change Adapter’, ‘Authority Source’ and ‘Conventional’. Brett’s model also inspires my research in the cross-analysis of disruptive personalities of Hong Kong youth activists in Chapter 2.2.

Change Adapter

Brett refers to the next meta-program as a ‘Change Adapter’, and those who tend to embrace change or ‘adapt’ quicker are more disruptive (2018). Positive or negative, early adapters are energised even in the unknown, whereas late adapters tend to fight and resist change. Psychologically, mindsets are said to be conditioned by past experiences, by theory of classical conditioning (McLeod, 2018). Brett sees disruptors as fast adapters, acknowledging change without the need for conditioning (2018). They have the ability to identify where change is needed, and may even feel bored in the lack of change (Brett, 2018). Socially, ‘Change Adapter’ is core in the early stages of widespread change: from larger scales such as protest rallies, to ‘smaller’ acts

Fig 2. Seven Elements of the Disruptive Mindset (Brett, 2018)

like signing a petition. In other words, ‘disruptive thinking’ and ‘change adaption’ are essentially synonymous, and the former cannot exist without the latter.

Authority Source

Brett argues that our ‘Authority Source’ also plays a considerable role in establishing a disruptive mindset (2018). On one end, there is internal authority, where some rely on instinct and past experiences to justify their actions. On the other end, some are inclined to seek external authority from figures like thought leaders or even dictators for decision-making. Brett argues that disruptive mindsets identify with internal authority, as disruption involves the creation of something new without a need for authority figures (2018). Culturally, history has witnessed the downfalls of authoritarianism, and a disruptive rise towards democratic changes (Mérieau, 2020). Since unconditional reliance on leadership has not always produced the healthiest outcomes, true disruptors are uniquely different by pivoting and iterating for longer lasting change. Hence, this shifting trend exemplifies how ‘Authority Source’ as just a ‘way of thinking’ can still cause sweeping, universal changes.

Conventional

The ‘Conventional’ meta-program implicates the differences between conformists and nonconformists (Brett, 2018). Conformity, or ‘Conventional’, implies a sense of belonging, approvalseeking and meeting the status quo. On the contrary, disruptors have no desire to be conventional. Disruption and conformity are basically counter-intuitive; Brett explains that disruptive mindsets is key to pioneering ideas even if disagreement is resulted (2018). The idea of disruption is to oppose the status quo (Acaroglu, 2017, p.6) Alternatively, social issues can arise from excess maintenance of the status quo. Clayton Christensen, pioneer of the business ‘disruptive innovation’ theory, argues that healthcare in the US is inaccessible for this reason:

“Too much of the money available to address social needs is used to maintain the status quo, because it is given to organizations that are wedded to their current solutions, delivery models, and recipients.” (Christensen et al, 2006)

Fig 3. Diagram mapping the influence of mindsets (Drake, 2019)

Brett’s model is significant because it helps to humanise the rationale behind disruptive behaviours. Although this model was devised for a commercial context, and does not medically determine whether an individual is either ‘disruptive’ or ‘not disruptive’, it does propose a mental perspective for perhaps why some individuals act disruptively. Our mindsets influence the way we approach life, both sociologically and politically. Fig 3 demonstrates how mindsets can establish our values, frame our roles, and ultimately, the events that have impact our world (Drake, 2019). For example: conservative mindsets can establish traditional values, and if a role of a leader retains such mindset, they could instigate significant, impactful events reflecting this mindset.

1.2 Systems Thinking approach to disruption

A ‘wicked’ problem is essentially a problem of ‘unfixable’ nature (Horst, 1973). They may be incomplete, lack clarity, have perpetually changing requirements, and hence seem ‘impossible’ to resolve. A systems thinking approach recognises this challenge, but advocates for iterative solutions instead of seeing outcomes as either right or wrong. In this sense, solutions can be limitless, and themes like circularity and dynamism are also reflected.

In order to enact systematic change, one must first wholly interpret the system before locating points of intervention. Donella Meadows, one of the first thinkers of systems thinking, defines a system as “a set of related components that work together in a particular environment to perform whatever functions are required to achieve the system’s objective” (1993, quoted in Popin, 2020). In this case, social change is the objective, and the system’s functions are potential interventions of change. Looking at the system from a bird’s eye view acknowledges the complexity of the system, but also allows us to identify which areas require change, how much change is necessary to better evaluate the effectiveness of such change outcomes. Envision a system as a network of nodes each representing a vital function, and systems existing within other systems: examples of complex systems could be atoms and electrons, ecosystems and forms of government (Meadows, 1997).

The value of systems thinking is evident when we genuinely consider who we are designing for, and where these changes will take effect. Take Hong Kong’s housing issue for example: since government ownership of land has reserved little for public housing, it has only exacerbated the housing crisis, leaving private land developers an unfair leverage over an unaffordable housing market. More than 200,000 people in the city currently live in sub-divided flats, known as ‘cage’ or ‘coffin’ homes amounting to £420 monthly rent (South China Morning Post, 2016). With 21 residents squeezing into a mere 500 square-feet flat, it poses no ideal situation in times like COVID-19, where meeting adequate hygiene standards is virtually impossible (Fig 4). This poorly designed system also implicates factors such as population growth, personal income, gross domestic product and far-reaching government policies (Hu & Shen, 2000). To adopt a systems approach, linear thinking must be rejected. To alleviate the problem of people living in cage

homes, it is therefore crucial to consider all components of the housing system rather than simply cite ‘lack of land’ as the root of the problem.

In Meadows’ text, “Places to Leverage in a System” (1997), a total of nine ‘leverage points’ for change can be identified in a system. To be concise, only three leverage points most relevant to Hong Kong’s housing crisis (as well as sociopolitical activism elaborated in Chapter Three) will be raised, from least to most significant:

The power of self-organisation

In the context of systems thinking, this leverage point is the ability to “change themselves by creating whole new structures and behaviours” (1997, p.14). Self-organisation is comparable to self-resilience. Without enacting change, organisations and structures cannot last, regardless of state of power. In a natural sense, the human body exhibits powers of self-organisation through regulating biological processes: in our development of bacterial immunity and our mental capacities to process and adapt to new information (1997, p.15). To leverage self-organisation in the system, is to recognise that systems that do so, have better chances of survival. Likewise, systems that lack self-organisational qualities such as agility, receptiveness to criticism and change adaption (p.8) are more fragile.

As mentioned, Hong Kong’s land supply is completely monopolised by the government. This effectively makes land a source of sizeable income for the government, and largely reasons why it is a city that records one of world’s lowest income taxes (Davis, 2019). The government’s increasing dependence on real-estate tax and land sales has remained unchanged for decades, reaching a historic high of 30% in 2018 (Leung, Ng & Tang, 2020, p.10). A weak leverage point in self-organisation lies here: despite Hong Kong being hailed as a ‘tax haven’, this relentless fiscal model has only emphasised the deep-rooted inequalities between the wealthy and poor, or in other words, those who can afford private housing, and those who cannot.

Fig 3. Man living in cage home of a sub-divided flat (Cheng, 2019)

The paradigm of the system

Meadows then identifies the mindset as a leverage point as second to most significant (1997, p.17). The mindset of the system, known as its ‘paradigm’, is described by Meadows as “the shared idea in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions—unstated because unnecessary to state” (1997, p.17). Paradigms therefore make up the source of our systems, and why we should view our system as a result of collective ideas, the intangibility of the system.

Again, looking at Hong Kong’s housing crisis, it can be argued that leveraging this paradigm is feasible. From a utilitarian perspective, the government should supply more land for public housing, and seek alternative sources of fiscal income. However, Hong Kong’s capitalist nature is firmly embedded with paradigms likened to ‘trickle-down economics’, an idea popularised by former US president Reagan in the 1980s (Amadeo, 2021). This superposes tax-cuts for the wealthy on the intent that it will ‘trickle’ down resources in the form of working-class jobs and resources. In understanding the power that capitalist paradigms impose, the housing problem appears far more complex than perhaps understood from a purely utilitarian standpoint.

The power to transcend paradigms

Above all, Meadows regards the leverage point in transcending paradigms as the most significant in systems change (1997, p.19). Beyond shifting the paradigm, she argues that the realisation that no paradigm is ‘true’ and our agency to be flexible around it is what Meadows refers to as ‘paradigm transcendence’. Perhaps also the least accessible leverage point, yet arguably the most disruptive, we see examples of transcending paradigms inspired in Hong Kong across the sociopolitical demonstrations to be elaborated in Chapter Three.

1.3 Disruptive Design as a Method

Fig 4. The Disruptive Design Process in 3 Parts (Acaroglu, 2017)

Disruption has also been structured as a methodology, typically used in creative briefs or social organisations. Leyla Acaroglu, social innovator and designer, theorised a three-part method for using disruptive design tactics for enacting change in “The Disruptive Design Method Handbook” (2017). Although this method is typically applied in business transformation, certain principles have also been deployed in Hong Kong’s own activism strategies (elaborated in

Chapter 2.3). This section summarises the key points of Acaroglu’s disruptive process, visualised in Fig 5 as a reiterative loop.

As the first phase suggests, ‘Mining’ is about digging deeper, in search for something previously unforeseen in a chaotic system. Acaroglu encourages the adaptation of the role as a ‘problem lover’ where you begin to define the arena to recognise its hyper-complexity rather than adopt a reductionist view (2017, p.17). Although recognising interconnectivity is important, understanding the limitations of your scope is also critical as disruption only works to a certain extent. Formally, in disruptive design practice, a scope would be established to communicate the intention of your actions. Although the intentions of social disruption may not be always be laid out meticulously, we have seen successful movements mobilise quickly through realistic inquiry. For example, BLM raises specific questions such as “How do we scaffold and support our well-being through direct action and confrontation?” in their manifesto (Healing in Action Toolkit, 2018). These questions have provoked thoughts and discussion at a global scale, forming talking points for BLM educators to articulate their social objectives to relevant stakeholders.

Amongst the many research approaches at our disposal, Acaroglu recommends fieldwork-based methods above all (2017, p.33). This is because disruption is positioned against linear ways of investigation (e.g. hypothesis-testing) and when we work with real-world issues — research should be relevant by being dynamic and human-centric. Relevant methods could be observation, ethnography and participatory research. Participatory action took a foothold in the BLM movement when we saw a viral shift towards ‘self-education’ on social media. Additionally, online communities have rallied people from across the globe, and facilitated a new wave of solidarity that had advantage over other historic justice movements (Stephen, 2020). Mining, the first phase of disruption, is therefore about prioritising awareness over solutions, in order to frame realistic social goals before anything else.

The middle phase in Acaroglu’s disruptive method is ‘Landscaping’ (2017, p.47), where we see some parallel with Meadows’ systems thinking (1997). Landscaping uses systems theory to locate intervention points, also known as ‘interconnected feedback loops’ (Fig 6). Acaroglu condenses complex systems into three kinds: ecological/planet, industrial/products and human/people

Fig 6. Interconnected Feedback Loops (Acaroglu, 2017)

(2017, p.53). All are effective of one another, but for the sake of relevance, this section centralises specially on the human element, otherwise known as our social systems. These systems impose order and maintain the way of life as we know it through governance, society and education— even our own family and friendships are part of a social system (Fig 7).

To identify the relationships that prevail within our precious social systems, Acaroglu refers to these intervention points as feedback loops, of which belong to two types: balancing and reinforcing (2017, p.55). A balancing feedback loop involves input and output to maintain equilibrium. She uses the example of an indoor thermostat to represent a feedback loop between a machine and room in how the thermostat only produces enough heat to maintain a desired temperature level (2017, p.57). Sometimes the output will be more, and other times less, subject to the room’s requirement.

However, systematic balance cannot be successful alone. This is evidenced in the balancing feedback loops that exist in our social systems such as recycling incentive programs, for example. Vouchers have been rewarded to encourage people to produce less waste, indeed leading to positive results in household engagement and reduced landfill usage (Plastic Smart Cities, 2014). Having said that, a report evaluating the success of the UK’s Recycling Rewards and Recognition scheme in 2011 concluded the following:

“Schemes aimed at raising awareness but that do not provide the necessary supporting infrastructure will lead to a frustrated target audience unable to carry out the intended action. Alternatively a poorly promoted scheme with an excellent delivery system in place will simply result in lack of understanding and commitment.” (Widdowson, Maunder & Read, 2014, p.258)

This realises the intent of recycling initiatives as successful, though only to an extent that is subject to understanding and commitment. Reinforcing feedback loops ensure that no social system is ever truly balanced (2017, p.57). Acarogolu explains that whereas balance loops insinuate a ‘give and take’ principle, reinforcement loops can continue to ‘take’ without regard. Acaroglu describes this through the example of exponential population growth. Currently, we see hardly any balancing feedback loops in our social systems to tackle issues such as limited

Fig 7. The Three Interconnected Complex Systems (Acaroglu, 2017)

housing, resource depletion and global warming. Reinforcing loops are therefore more impactful, as it highlights the biggest discrepancies within even functional systems. Once feedback loops are identified, Acaroglu suggests systems mapping techniques in her method (2017, p.57). This is where solutions begin to manifest upon intervention points. An example of a systems map can be referred to in Fig 7. There are various systems mapping techniques at our disposal — some as simple as brainstorming — but the importance of mapping lies in our ability to visualise the extent of where to enact change.

In traditional disruptive practice, this leads to the stage of developing a theory of change (2017, p.60). It is used as a tool that initially starts with a desired outcome, and works backwards to ideate the necessary steps leading up to it. Applications of ToC have been used for change initiatives for female victims of domestic violence for example (Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2004). Fig 8 provides the model adapted for this specific community project, also known as ‘Project Superwoman’. In this ToC, a very specific, desired outcome is highlighted in orange: to support women in obtaining employment. The narrative of change is then broken down to a series of inputs, activities and outputs, where it appears to be reiterative in sequence. Likened to Acaroglu’s view, awareness (input) is preceded by action (activity) then an outcome (output). In summary, Landscaping is where we view disruption systematically through identifying relationships, models and theories for subsequent solutions.

Fig 8. Theory of Change Model (ActKnowledge & Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2003)

The final phase of the disruptive design method is known as ‘Building’ (2017, p.74). This revolves around the development of leveraging change as seen in the ToC (Fig 8). Emphasising reiteration in nature, insights are gathered. These take form in “ideas, opportunities, possibilities and provocations” to name a few (2017, p.75), and are essentially the tangible outcomes of the process. Within our sociopolitical context, an example of insight strategy is compelled in the civil disobedience tactics used by XR in 2019 (Fig 9). Daily disruptors such as blocking traffic, grounding flights and halting entry to public buildings were used to leverage change (Givetash, 2019). Their radical vision in engaging public and government attention, at the cost of sustained daily life, succeeded: within weeks of the grassroots movement, the UK parliament declared a state of climate emergency and legally binding target for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Nugent, 2020).

After insights, we can start to ideate solutions rapidly using a rules-based approach. Acaroglu lays out ten rules for imagining potential leverage points, but for relevance, only some will be reviewed (2017, p.77). To achieve social disruption at a successful degree, it must first be understood that unique problems require unique solutions, and some solutions can be as simple as promoting awareness. It is also practical to constantly refer to the scope and functions of your sociopolitical outcomes (p.13). Moreover, cultivating empathy is a powerful tool, one of which instigates change through motivations, actions and desires within the human sphere of the main system (Fig 7). Embracing a do-philosophy can produce a wide array of solutions, emphasising prototyping and testing until the planned outcome is achieved (2017, p.77-81). Prototyping is the idea of rapid reiteration for solutions to continually evolve, be more effective, and therefore embody lasting change.

During the prototyping phase, Acaroglu advocates using gamification to explore game mechanics for incentives even in non-gaming environments (2017, p.87). Examples of gamification may include the recycling initiative case study cited in p.14 and Freerice (Fig 10), a website that donates ten grains of rice each time a user answers correctly in an online trivia quiz (United Nations World Food Program, 2007). This encapsulation of ‘learning for a cause’ has gathered

Fig 9. Extinction Rebellion activists disrupt Canning Town station (Extinction Rebellion, 2019)

over a million users worldwide, raising more than 100 billion grains of rice since its launch (UN News, 2012). Building is a phase that need not be perfect or complete. It does not have to present an ideal solution answering to the complexity of social systems. Instead, it should help to unravel, and perhaps re-initiate a new cycle of the three phases. To recap this stage, insights are established, the concepts of ideation and prototyping are introduced, and tools for change such as gamification can be taken inspiration from.

The disruptive design method intends to create a positive impact on our social systems at play, and requires thinking in a way that ignores the past — in fact, rendering it completely obsolete. Principles of this method have been applied to a range of successful social initiatives, where this chapter has highlighted through examples in sustainability schemes, support programs for victims of domestic violence and protest demonstrations. This concludes a subject review of disruption, where we addressed the meaning of what ‘disruption’ entails. From here, how these disruptive features are being applied in Hong Kong’s activism will be discussed in Chapter Two.

Fig 10. Screenshot taken from the Freerice website (United Nations, 2020)