Society builders pave the way, to a better
world to a better day. A united approach to

building a new society. Join the conversation
for social transformation. Society Builders.

Society builders with your host, Duane Varan.

Welcome to Society Builders and thanks for
joining the conversation for social transformation.

We ve talked a lot in these first few years
about the process of social transformation.

And at the center of this discussion stands
two key pillars: engaging with public discourse

- and social action. Today, we re going to
tackle one of these two key pillars - we re

going to explore what DISCOURSE really means
and how we should engage with such discourse,

as Baha is, eager to apply our principles
to the challenges of our day.

Now I want to emphasize the word explore . We
re TOGETHER - EXPLORING - all of this because

I think you re going to see enormous growth
and command over what this all means over

the course of the next two and a half decades.
We still have a lot of learn about this. So

I think our understanding of this all today
is still relatively nascent. That s why it

s going to be a journey of discovery.

And as I hope you ll recognize today, engaging
EFFECTIVELY with such discourse, from a Baha

i perspective, is actually a lot harder than
it first sounds. But by grappling with its

challenges, hopefully, we ll all be more aware
and sensitive to its demands further empowering

us to engage in such discourse with confidence.

So today we explore the art of engaging with
the discourses prevalent in society and we

start with the question: What is discourse?

Now I start today s episode with a massive
disclaimer. I continue reminding you that

I represent no Baha i agency. This podcast
series is an individual initiative and I share

views here that are no more or less important
than your own. It s important to remember

this at all times as you listen to these podcasts
so you can frame them as what they really

are: Ideas stimulating your OWN thinking.

And that s why I say that we are together
exploring these themes. You shouldn t take

anything I say as Gospel. This isn t a Vulcan
Mind Meld. I m not transferring knowledge

to you here. I m simply floating ideas that
you should weigh and consider for yourself

ideas that MIGHT contribute to your OWN study
and consultations, if you so choose.

Some topics, like today s, are a little more
fluid and nascent than others so you should

be even more diligent in weighing up these
ideas in this context. There s a lot that

we still have to discover, collectively, about
how to best engage with public discourse.

It s a lot more challenging than it first
seems. And this is why it s so important for

you to always remember that the views we explore
in these podcasts together, are not authoritative.

Engaging with public discourse, of course,
is easy. Doing it well is a massive challenge.

But doing it in a manner that is BOTH effective
and consistent with our principles well it

s a lot harder threading that needle.

And I say this because it is easy to get sucked
in by the discourses of our day often for

the best of reasons but it s easy to unconsciously
adopt approaches that might not, in truth,

reflect our principles that become political
or otherwise disunifying. Figuring out how

to ELEVATE discourse well that s no easy task.
And that s what we re going to try to grapple

with in today s episode.

So with that disclaimer and those guard rails
in place, let s get on with today s episode.

Now the focus of today s episode is to tease
out what we mean by engaging with public discourse.

What is discourse?

I want to start here by sharing a word of
caution. What WE mean by discourse and what

OTHERS in society mean by discourse are not
necessarily one and the same thing.

Now there s no one definition of discourse
in fact, different academic disciplines define

discourse in VERY different ways. For example,
from a post-modern sociological perspective,

which is one of the fields which most actively
dedicates itself specifically to the study

of discourse, from this perspective there
is a clear power dimension to discourse. From

this perspective how you frame conversations
in itself becomes the BASIS for power structures.

Power is constructed through command in the
very framing of the conversation. So discourse,

in this context, is largely about liberation
about deconstructing and reconstructing meaning.

Far from working to discover a single unified
truth, it works to create many different relativistic

truths. It s about creating your own truth.
But fundamentally, at its core, it s about

power it s about prevailing.

In other words, in these contexts, discourse
is a tool a tool in a quest for power. And

we enter into discourse to seize power for
OUR ideas to prevail.

Now by way of contrast, however, the discourse
construct in science is very different. There,

discourse is about a community of researchers,
collaborating, sharing, exchanging, reviewing

and scrutinizing evidence replicating studies
together being part of a larger process of

DISCOVERY. It s a quest to unveil and build
upon fundamental truths.

It s the same word DISCOURSE but it means
entirely different things here. It has entirely

different implications different understandings
of truth - different goals different methods

different outcomes.

So when we use the term discourse, what do
WE mean by it?

And it s not even about whether we re talking
about something which is more like political

discourse or something more like scientific
discourse we actually have an entirely unique

and fresh approach to discourse. And our challenge
is in better understanding and applying THIS

kind of Baha i paradigm to the discourses
of society.

So what we mean by discourse is something
entirely different than what others mean.

And our challenge is to align ourselves with
this reality. But before we can do that, we

have to first understand what that reality
is.

So let s give this some thought because how
we frame it will be critical to our subsequent

engagement with such discourses.

Now, the answer to this question of how we
understand discourse - is not immediately

apparent. As a community, I think, we don
t yet have a unity of thought on what our

participation in such discourse really looks
or feels like. We don t have sufficient experience

and reflection on such experience. We may
mean very different things which, of course,

is a recipe for us making lots of mistakes.
And perhaps even more important it s a recipe

for the risk of us getting sucked into the
ways that society defines discourse rather

than working to elevate society s understanding
of discourse by aligning it with approaches

more consistent with our Faith.

And if I m being honest, I think many of us
engage and interact with discourses today

by coming into them - yeah - equipped with
our Baha i principles and that s good but

I think our approach is largely framed by
society s paradigms. So while we bring Baha

i ideas into these discourses I m not sure
that our approach is entirely consistent with

how we SHOULD be approaching such discourse,
from a Baha i perspective, despite our best

intentions. Because we just haven t reflected
enough on what Baha i engagement with the

prevalent discourses of our day SHOULD look
like.

And by the way I m being self-reflexive here.

So our safeguard here, really, is to study
the messages of the Universal House of Justice

to see how THEY describe discourse and to
then align our approaches within this framework.

THAT s how we can be more confident that we
re approaching our engagement appropriately.

And this process of studying the messages
is exactly what I did as part of the research

in preparing for this episode. I tracked down
a little over 70 references from the Universal

House of Justice where they describe the discourse
construct and I studied these references to

try, however imperfectly, to grapple with
what discourse, from a Baha i perspective,

really should and what it shouldn t be. This
included whole letters from the Universal

House of Justice to individual believers who
were specifically struggling with how to best

engage with discourses on specific issues
casting new light on the construct, at least

for me.

Now, don t rely on my study here. You should
study this all for yourself. That s the beauty

of our Faith, right!

But in my own research, I see five different
characteristics which prevail as themes across

these messages. I believe these five largely
define what a Baha i approach to discourse

should look and feel like.

These five features which should define Baha
i approaches to discourse, I believe, are:

1. It should be unifying.
2. It should be consultative.

3. It should be uplifting.
4. It should be principled.

5. And it should be constructive.

Now we re going to need to discuss each of
these features specifically, because each

has a lot that it entails. And in this context,
we re going to together study some of the

guidance from the Universal House of Justice
that speaks to these.

One small footnote though before we dive into
that all.

Now, I ve referred to this guidance as the
way I think, based on the guidance, we SHOULD

approach discourse. But to be clear we ll
usually be entering into existing discourses

in society and we can t define how those discourses
are constructed. So while our approach is

an aspiration it s an approach nested within
other approaches approaches which we don t

control and this adds considerably to the
challenge. We can t define how others approach

discourse we re guests in their homes so to
speak. But we can govern our OWN approach

and that s what we re speaking to today. How
WE should approach discourse.

So with that thought, let s dive in on the
first of these features its unifying focus.

So the first feature we identified earlier
is that our approach to discourse should be

unifying in its focus. Now, I m going to refer
to this as our supreme imperative it s the

one thing, above all, I think, which differentiates
us and which society will increasingly demand

of us. In a polarized, divided world where
people are grappling with all kinds of problems

I think they will increasingly learn that
Baha is are experts in the art of finding

unifying paths going forward in their attempts
to address their problems it will largely

define how society views us and our approach
to discourse in the same way that you associate

minimalism, for example, with Zen Budhist
philosophy. And, I believe, it will be this

unifying approach which will prove to be our
greatest point of contrast with other approaches

to discourse which will remain, I believe,
largely divisive and polarizing.

If you only remember one thought from today
s episode I hope it will be this idea that

our approach needs to be unifying. If you
get this one idea right, most of the rest

of the features that we re going to discuss
will probably fall in place. So this is the

one thing, above all, I think that we should
strive to bring to our approaches to discourse.

Now there are numerous references in the messages
from the Universal House of Justice that I

studied to this idea, including this one:

The distinctive nature of their approach is
to avoid conflict and the contest for power

while striving to unite people in the search
for underlying moral and spiritual principles

and for practical measures that can lead to
the just resolution of the problems afflicting

society. Bah Ւs perceive humanity as a single
body. All are inseparably bound to one another.

A social order structured to meet the needs
of one group at the expense of another results

in injustice and oppression. Instead, the
best interest of each component part is achieved

by considering its needs in the context of
the well-being of the whole.

Now this is an incredibly profound understanding
of reality that we really need to come to

terms with. Society reduces conflicts to binaries
to good guys and bad guys to us vs. them.

And we have been raised in those societies
we have world views deeply woven into the

very fabric of how we think that reflects
this paradigm. And that s something we re

going to have to work to reprogram because
it s a view that is simply not in alignment

with the fundamental truth that Baha u llah
reveals that we are all part of one human

family one organic whole.

Consider these words from the Universal House
of Justice:

In choosing areas of collaboration, Bah Ւs
are to bear in mind the principle, enshrined

in their teachings, that means should be consistent
with ends; noble goals cannot be achieved

through unworthy means. Specifically, it is
not possible to build enduring unity through

endeavours that require contention or assume
that an inherent conflict of interests underlies

all human interactions, however subtly.

So however tempting it is, however justified
it may feel we have to avoid reducing the

problem to the binary to feed the conflict.
We have to work and it s hard work but we

have to work to find and build unifying frameworks.

Now now this hard in practical and pragmatic
terms, but it s even harder on an emotional

level. And I don t pretend for a second that
this is easy to practice. It s hard to resist

taking a side particularly where sides are
so well-defined and where it feels natural

to want to support a side. But we have a higher
goal and that is unified thought and unified

action. And that often requires us to bridge
competing interests.

I d like to illustrate this by drawing your
attention to what I think is the best example

of this. As you all know, for over 40 years,
we have been victims of an active campaign

of genocide in Iran. There can be no question
that our oppression in Iran is entirely unjustified

I mean, even in oppression we continue to
be model citizens. We re even obedient to

the government that oppresses us. We are oppressed
on every level, we re jailed, our homes are

confiscated, we re denied opportunities for
access to education to jobs. We pay even with

our very lives. And all of this simply because
we choose to align ourselves with our Faith

a Faith which is entirely peace loving, socially
positive and which poses absolutely no threat,

in any way, to anyone, anywhere.

Now how do we frame our oppressor? You ll
find no vilification in any of our words.

No hatred. No calls for punishment. While
we do draw attention to their actions to the

injustices themselves seeking to stop them
we don t paint our oppressors as evil. We

still recognize them as part of the same human
family and we call on them to rise to a higher

version of themselves.

And tomorrow, if, for example, there was a
change in regimes do you think it would be

Baha is calling for them to be punished? For
their factions to be ostracized? For retribution?

Absolutely not. Even in that scenario Baha
is would still remain focused on what we can

all do, collectively, to build a better society.

Our beliefs are not hollow it s not mere lip
service. Our beliefs have been tested and

we ve demonstrated our authenticity. And THIS
is why we are such credible ambassadors for

this unified approach because we practice
what we preach. We don t vilify even our oppressor.

Now I should also comment a bit on the path
to getting to unified thought and action.

Such unity does not require or entail uniformity.
It s not that we all have to sing to the same

hymn sheet. We want a diversity of views we
want to explore problems from all of their

potential angles. That s a critical part of
the path to discovering a truth. As Abdul-Baha

reminds us, He says:

Should anyone oppose, he must on no account
feel hurt for not until matters are fully

discussed can the right way be revealed. The
shining spark of truth cometh forth only after

the clash of differing opinions.

And similarly, the Beloved Guardian, Shoghi
Effendi explains this:

Truth may, in covering different subjects,
appear to be contradictory, and yet it is

all one if you carry the thought through to
the end.

And the Universal House of Justice explains
how while initial difference of opinion is

the starting point for examining an issue
in order to reach greater understanding and

consensus; it should not become a cause of
rancor, aversion, or estrangement.

So the path to getting to unity of thought
and action NECESSARILY requires us to weigh

different ideas but those differences are
part of the journey not the destination. And

HOW we get to that destination how we maximize
our capacity to get to that unified end THAT

is a big part of what we re going to continue
exploring today.

So remember, your one takeaway from today
s episode is that above all, our approaches

to discourse must be centered in our quest
to find a unified way going forward.

Now if being unifying is our goal here, a
consultative approach is our means and method.

It s the primary tool which empowers us in
our unifying approach.

It s clear that in the messages I studied,
the Universal House of Justice clearly frames

discourse as consultation. In fact, elevating
it to becoming more consultative is a large

part of the potential contribution which Baha
is bring to the table here.

Here, for example, is guidance on this theme
written on behalf of the Universal House of

Justice:

Concepts and principles associated with Bah
Ւ consultation inform how the friends should

interact among themselves and how they participate
in social discourses and social action. Consultation

provides a means by which common understanding
can be reached and a collective course of

action defined. It involves a free, respectful,
dignified, and fair-minded effort on the part

of a group of people to exchange views, seek
truth, and attempt to reach consensus.

And later in this same message, they quote
from Baha u llah:

Say: no man can attain his true station except
through his justice. No power can exist except

through unity. No welfare and no well-being
can be attained except through consultation.

So consultation is at the core of our approach
it s the method by which we get to unified

thought and action. And here, all of our principles
about what consultation is suddenly come into

the mix around discourse. So let s explore
some of these principles:

First, we share ideas but we don t own them.
We re detached from our views. They belong

to the group. It s not a contest of ideas
or a contest of personalities it s a quest

of discovery a journey to find the best solutions
to the problems we re hoping to address.

Second, we listen actively listen - to all
views. Here I m reminded of the practices

of the Maori in New Zealand. When they have
a community problem, they gather together

in their Marae their sacred community meeting
hall. And they come prepared for a consultation

that may last many days and nights. But the
most important thing is that they believe

the solution to their problem will be shared
with them through their ancestors and it is

the ancestors who will choose WHO to speak
their wisdom through. So whenever a person

speaks, they listen intently because THIS
might be the channel that their ancestors

chose to speak their wisdom. You might not
like the guy they chose but you listen all

the same because you just don t know who the
ancestors will choose. I love this practice

I think it really illustrates the spirit of
how we should be listening.

Third, we don t know the outcome in advance.
Now this is very different from the kind of

political discourse that happens in larger
society where people come to the discussion

with the outcome already baked in. And we
have to be on guard that we don t come into

the discourse with similar assumptions even
to the extent that we shouldn t come to it

so that our views can triumph. We have to
be genuinely open to allowing the power of

the consultation itself to guide the discourse.
We re participating in a quest a journey open

to where the consultation ultimately takes
us.

Fourth, consultation is participatory. We
all have equal voice at the table. We have

no greater right to define the outcome than
anyone else. Everyone s interests must be

protected. We don t approach the consultation
assuming we re standing in a superior position.

It s a collective enterprise.

Fifth, our goal is consensus. We re not trying
to see an idea prevail with a simple majority

we re working towards a goal of unified thought
and unified action we want as many people

as possible to share in the outcome. Now that
might not always be possible but we have to

be clear to our aspiration here. Our aspiration
is for the widest and deepest agreement not

the simple adoption or prevalence of our ideas.

Sixth, we approach our consultation in a spirit
that is respectful, moderate, humble and courteous

we ll talk more about that one a little later
today.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly,
we seek Divine Guidance. We re seeking spiritual

guidance to help find a path forward both
in terms of applying our teachings but also

in terms of attracting Divine Confirmations.
So we recognize that the process is sacred.

So for us discourse is an extension of our
principles of consultation. It is not about

power it s not even about us working for the
triumph of our views it s not even about us

winning over converts to our Cause. It s about
us interacting with the world around us in

a spirit of service - as equal partners exploring
and addressing the problems of our day - through

constructive and unifying consultation. It
s not about getting to a preordained outcome.

It s about an authentic and participatory
journey of discovery.

Now if unity is our goal and consultation
our method being uplifting is our style. It

s a reflection of how, ideally, we should
engage in our consultative methods.

On a number of occasions, the Universal House
of Justice has called on us to elevate the

very atmosphere in which we move . Any time
I see a reference like this, I m immediately

inspired and deeply moved. It s such a powerful
idea. But what does it really mean? What does

it mean to elevate the atmosphere?

I once had an employee at my company who had
this kind of effect. This is a shout out to

you Anna Kemp. I can t tell you exactly what
she did I can t think of one specific quality

that she exemplified I mean she was always
eager to help others to collaborate I don

t know what it was about her but when she
left to go to a better job, the next day you

could physically feel her absence. Our whole
work culture suddenly felt her loss. She had

an effect on us that we weren t even aware
of until she was gone.

If we exemplify our teachings we ll be like
the Anna Kemps of the world. We ll have a

deep and profound impact in the discourses
we engage in not just because of the content

of our ideas but also because of the manner
in which we engage with them.

The messages from the Universal House of Justice
that address discourse frequently call on

us to exemplify such conduct. To become a
radiant source of wisdom to which people can

turn for illumination, reflecting a humble
posture of learning, a source for harmonizing

views and shaping collective action, rising
above self-interest, charactized by moderation

in our deliberations, with humility as our
watchword, enthusiastically offering an open

heart and an open hand, and championing a
spirit of collaboration and service. Such

discourse should be a free, respectful, dignified,
and fair-minded effort on the part of a group

of people to exchange views, seek truth, and
attempt to reach consensus.

And the Universal House of Justice gives us
a gift the example of Abdul-Baha. Here, they

remind us:

Under all conditions, the Master is your solace
and support. For those who aspire to lasting

change, His example guides the way tactful
and wise in His approach, penetrating in utterance,

indiscriminating in fellowship, unfailing
in sympathy for the downtrodden, courageous

in conduct, persevering in action, imperturbable
in the face of tests, unwavering in His keen

sense of justice.

Wow! How inspiring!

Now, this idea of the example of Abdul-Baha,
I think, is our emergency short circuit solution

to guide us whenever we re uncertain about
something. This is that break glass in case

of emergency device, available to us.

I remember Ruhiyeh Khanoom once used this
example. She said: You know, imagine that

you re not certain whether or not it would
be appropriate for you to go to the cinema

to watch a particular movie. And you re grappling
with this. Well the test is simple. Just imagine

that when you walk out of the theater, you
bump into Abdul-Baha. Now if you re ashamed

at that moment then it s probably not the
right movie.

Now I love this example and I think it s the
perfect tool for us evaluating and reflecting

on our own approaches to discourse. Just imagine
that Abdul-Baha is sitting by your side as

you comment. THAT will be your guiding light.
Do that and I guarantee you re going to elevate

every discourse you engage with.

So unity is our goal consultation our method
elevating our style but where do we get the

substance of our potential contributions?

Here, of course, what it is that we REALLY
have to offer is the Baha i teachings. This

is the substance of our contribution. I mean,
I know you have a brilliant mind and all but,

you know, there are a lot of brilliant minds
out there in the world. What REALLY makes

you different is that you re equipped with
the Baha i teachings and THAT s what will

really make the difference in the discourse
you re engaging with. So that s your goal

to connect people to the truths reflected
in the Baha i teachings.

Now let s explore this idea with an example.

Imagine, if you will, that somehow, through
some kind of time machine, you got transported

into the past into, say the year 1920. Now
what makes you truly different to everyone

else alive in 1920 is that you know truths
about their future truths they can t yet see.

So imagine that you enter into a discourse
about the future of kitchens. Well, as it

happens, you know a lot about that because
you ve seen the future of kitchens at least

relative to those living in 1920. It s not
an idea you re advocating for it s a truth.

And it s a truth you may not fully grasp.

So you start describing for people, for example,
the future of ovens and you explain that there

s a thing called a microwave oven that almost
instantly cooks your food. You can describe

how you put the food in this metal box. How
you push buttons on a console. Maybe the time

it takes to cook. But your knowledge is probably
limited. You may not know how it works, for

example only that it does.

You are equipped with a truth but your knowledge
is imperfect. But despite your limited understanding

what an incredible contribution to that discourse
this would be, right.

So we re in the same boat. We don t fully
understand the implications of our principles

but we know that they are the very salvation
for a tottering civilization. It s in those

principles that we will ultimately find the
cure for every social disease and malady.

And this also speaks to the challenge. Connecting
people to our principles requires that we

understand THEIR needs before we try to administer
our remedy. Baha i scholarship isn t about

command over our Writings it s about our ability
to APPLY our teachings to the problems of

individuals and society. And THAT requires
us to understand the need before we attempt

to connect it to the remedy. It requires command
over both THEIR needs and OUR Divine teachings.

In other words, like that skilled physician
that Baha u llah tells us about, we have to

first diagnose the disease before we turn
to seeing which remedies best apply. And this

as the Universal House of Justice tells us
is a skill. It s a skill we have to work on

improving both by becoming more conversant
in the discourses of society and being better

able to understand and apply our teachings.

And finally, it s critical that our approaches
be constructive in their focus. We need to

focus on the solutions and not the problems.
Here, the Universal House of Justice frames

discourse as a search for viable solutions
to humanity s problems, centered on constructive

processes aimed at the betterment of the world
and the progress of respective nations.

Now, this is another big idea that plays a
critical role, I think, in working towards

UNIFIED thought and action. Focus on the solution.

Often, discourse is centered on feeding discontent.
On the problem. On an injustice. On a transgression.

But clearly, we have to go beyond the problem
to find fertile ground where we can build

towards solutions.

Now in the Baha i context, I think, this means
that we focus on the world we re trying to

create and not the one we know is disintegrating
all around us.

So, for example, as Baha is we should focus
on race unity and not on racism. I know they

sound similar but they are very different
things. Racism is the problem. Race unity

is the solution. And it is this focus on race
unity on what we can do that is ultimately

unifying.

So where can we find a step forward even if
it s a modest step? Because a modest step

reflecting unified thought and unified action
is better than a more dramatic step that lacks

that.

And this speaks to something else. Often constructive
processes take time. They are built on modest

gains. But what we often want is something
dramatic attention worthy spectacular solutions

that will immediately remedy our problems.

Building in a framework of united thought
of united action often requires that we focus

on more modest gains where such unity can
best be achieved. And that s part of the solution.

And so our goal should be to focus on constructive
processes centered on finding solutions rather

than just further fanning the flames of our
discontent.

So we ve now discussed the five characteristics
that I think describe what we should aspire

to in our engagement with the prevalent discourses
of society. But I think we should also give

some attention to what we should try to AVOID
what our engagement should NOT look like.

And here, too, we have guidance from the Universal
House of Justice:

First and foremost, our engagement should
not be partisan. This is crystal clear. We

don t engage in partisan politics. The beloved
Guardian cautions us against doing or saying

things that can be seen as evidence of support
or criticism of a partisan political stance

he even cautions us against making references
to political figures to help safeguard us

from this.

This doesn t mean that we don t engage in
fully participating in the search for solutions

only that we avoid engaging either in support
or refutation of any partisan interests. Our

goal is to help elevate the discourse beyond
partisan concerns and interests.

Here we should reflect on this guidance from
the Universal House of Justice:

Bah Ւs have to avoid being drawn into the
all too common tendencies evident in contemporary

discourse to delineate sharp dichotomies,
become ensnared in contests for power, and

engage in intractable debate that obstructs
the search for viable solutions to the world

s problems. Humanity would be best and most
effectively served by setting aside partisan

disputation, pursuing united action that is
informed by the best available scientific

evidence and grounded in spiritual principles,
and thoughtfully revising action in the light

of experience. The incessant focus on generating
and magnifying points of difference rather

than building upon points of agreement leads
to exaggeration that fuels anger and confusion,

thereby diminishing the will and capacity
to act on matters of vital concern.

OK. Second, we don t resort to humiliation,
ridicule, insult or any approaches which attempt

to degrade others. Just as one can elevate
a conversation, so too can we degrade it.

No matter the passions that a discourse excites,
we must always refrain from allowing ourselves

to become a degrading influence.

Third, we should never engage in discourse
with an ulterior motive. This is not a vehicle

for us to teach or seek enrollments in our
Faith. Our motivation must always stay centered

on our desire to be of service. Yes we are
applying our principles but we re not doing

so to win over converts. That might prove
to be a natural consequence that follows,

but it should never be our motive. We must
always guard to make sure that we are being

sincere and authentic to our motive for being
of service.

And finally, we have to avoid the incessant
focus on generating and magnifying points

of difference and instead, we have to build
upon points of agreement.

So, as a final reminder, today we explored
five characteristics that should, as I understand

it, characterize Baha i engagement with the
prevalent discourses of our day:

1. It should be unifying.
2. It should be consultative.

3. It should be uplifting.
4. It should be principled.

5. And it should be constructive.

And remember, if you only walk away with one
of these today, it should be the idea that

we should approach discourse with a view to
being a unifying influence.

Thanks again for your patience today as we
together explored these ideas. Again, we have

a long way to go in our understanding and
command of discourse. This is an area we re

going to learn a great deal about over the
course of the next 25 years and my own understanding

is imperfect even though I tried today to
ground it in the guidance of the Universal

House of Justice.

So weigh my arguments but study the guidance
for yourself so you can come to your own conclusions.

My point in sharing this all with you is to
help sensitize you to the question what does

engaging with the prevalent discourses of
society look like from a Baha i perspective?

If you re not asking that question, there
s a good risk that you ll simply adopt the

contemporary paradigms of the day paradigms
which may not properly reflect our REAL potential

contributions here.

Now in our next episode we continue exploring
this art of discourse. Now that we have a

better sense of what it is or what it should
be we can start to explore how to best APPLY

what we ve learned in better engaging with
society.

So thanks again for your company today and
thanks, once again, for joining the conversation

for social transformation.

I look forward to continuing our conversation
- next time on Society Builders.

Society builders pave the way
To a better world to a better day

A united approach to building a new society

There s a crisis facing humanity
People suffer from a lack of unity

It s time for a better path to a new society

Join our conversation For social transformation

Society builders

So engage with your local communities
And explore all the exciting possibilities

We can elevate the atmosphere in which we
move

The paradigm is shifting
It is so very uplifting

It s a new beat, a new song, a brand new groove

Join our conversation For social transformation

Society builders

The Baha i Faith has a lot to say
Helping people to discover a better way

With discourse and social action framed by
unity

Now the time has come to lift our game
And apply the teachings of the Greatest Name

And rise to meet the glory of our destiny

Join our conversation For social transformation

Society builders

Join our conversation For social transformation

Society builders